Tell me about Blue Rose

[arscott]

Does Moliere's Tartuffe portray religion negatively?

Yes, it does. In fact, it portrayed religion so negatively, that the religious leader at the time (who was, in fact, Richelieu) woundn't let it be published or performed. It was only after it went through significant edits, which included adding a deus ex machina happy ending and changing Tartuffe's character from a real preist into an imposter, that the play was allowed to be seen.

"Theatre Major Powers Activate!"

 

[Gentlegamer]

Forgive me; I tend to employ Socratic techniques too often.

The point about Tartuffe is that he is a "religious" villain that really has nothing to do with religion. That is, his villainy is distinct from any social commentary on "organized religion." It may be comentary on false piety or the age old "religion is the last refuge of the scoundrel," but that is an age old issue of the human condition, and the reason it is a great play. Cardinal Richelieu seems to me to be a very similar type of character. The Grand Inquisiter, on the other hand . . .

As for the Catholic dynamics of the Cardinal et al . . . perhaps it is a social statement . . . of the mid 19th century. It is social statements of 20th century (contemporary) views that detracts from my enjoyment in source material for a FRPG.

Perhaps you are projecting your own social views into the story and find greater meaning in Richelieu's "religious" standing than the story itself intends. Nothing wrong with this, though. This the mark of a great story; corellary issues can come up that different readers will interpret in different ways but are not central to the story, more like an "interesting side quest." From what I've read of the "romantic fantasy" and Blue Rose setting, such things seem very central to the entire sub-genre.

Mind you, my characterization of the whole matter is taken from the summary of the "romantic fantasy" sub-genre on the Blue Rose website. I have not read the works in question and their execution of the material could possibly make any "social commentary" agreeable to my reading and inspirational tastes.

I'd like to thank you for our discussion. You make an excellent case, but I'm still not convinced. Perhaps my ignorance of the actual "romantic fantasy" stories is the problem.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Yes, it does. In fact, it portrayed religion so negatively, that the religious leader at the time (who was, in fact, Richelieu) woundn't let it be published or performed. It was only after it went through significant edits, which included adding a deus ex machina happy ending and changing Tartuffe's character from a real preist into an imposter, that the play was allowed to be seen.

"Theatre Major Powers Activate!"

Thank you for history lesson! Remember though, there is a difference between Richelieu the historical figure and Richelieu the villain of Three Musketeers.

I'm only familiar with the "edited" version, and that is the version to which I refer. Now answer the question in regard to that version.

 

[arscott]

Mind you, my characterization of the whole matter is taken from the summary of the "romantic fantasy" sub-genre on the Blue Rose website. I have not read the works in question and their execution of the material could possibly make any "social commentary" agreeable to my reading and inspirational tastes.

Yeah, after reading that description, I wouldn't be very keen on the genre either. It's not a particularly favorable description, and I don't think it's particularly accurate. It heavily overplays the social commentary aspect of romantic fantasy. If you haven't already, read my reaction to that summary earlier in this thread.

If you're less than happy with the prospect of socially progressive fantasy, but still want a slightly more optimistic twist to your fantasy, I can't recommend "The Shadow of the Lion" enough. It's an excellent historical fantasy co-authored by Mercedes Lackey. And the only politics involved are the intense rivalries of 1530s Venice and the Grand ambitions of the Holy Roman Empire, and the scheming machinations of Chernobog, demon ruler of Lithuania and Poland.

 

[Arrgh! Mark!]

To butt in..


I wonder how Blue Rose sales are going. Regardless of intellectual debate I would suggest that the tone of Blue Rose tends to alienate the common denominator of gaming. Despite my dislike of the setting, I really do think with a good campaign this particular game could raise interest in the teen-girl market of a more docile or fiction-fantasy bent.

The general fantasy roleplaying game tends to draw more on swords-and-sorcery and classic fantasy than modern (or romantic) fantasy as a rule, simply because the older stories rely heavily on an exciting tale. I hope for Blue Rose's ability to gain more roleplayers that gamers do pick it up - because the audience it aims for are not as a group involved in roleplaying as a common occurence. While most gamers have read some modern or romatic fantasy, generally they don't play in the same style.

I can foresee Blue Rose, ignored by the general gaming denominator being less and less available until it disappears, while the people it would attract go nowhere near it due to the fact the people who are interested in romantic fantasy do not move often in gaming circles.

So we'll see, anyway.


Oh, and I've played a game of Blue Rose. As predicted, the rules are good. The Fast-Play adventure sucked badly. I hope the creators will make a good adventure.

 

[Ranger REG]

I wonder how Blue Rose sales are going. Regardless of intellectual debate I would suggest that the tone of Blue Rose tends to alienate the common denominator of gaming. Despite my dislike of the setting, I really do think with a good campaign this particular game could raise interest in the teen-girl market of a more docile or fiction-fantasy bent.

Well, it's a big gamble. Then again, there haven't been such a RPG in the market. Mainly one would have to houserule romantic fantasy genre into rules systems like D&D/d20 or Storyteller.

 

[Unseenlibrarian]

Well, it's a big gamble. Then again, there haven't been such a RPG in the market. Mainly one would have to houserule romantic fantasy genre into rules systems like D&D/d20 or Storyteller.

Before I heard about Blue Rose, I was working up a RF game set in Tortall based on Cinematic Unisystem, for example.

 

[Faraer]

The general fantasy roleplaying game tends to draw more on swords-and-sorcery and classic fantasy than modern (or romantic) fantasy as a rule, simply because the older stories rely heavily on an exciting tale.

No, because it's male-dominated by the historical accident of its origin in wargaming! Except for people who like being in cliques, nothing could be better for the medium of roleplaying than for it to expand its demographic. Bravo to Chris Pramas et al. for trying something that larger companies won't attempt. In my own experience and for my purposes, well-chosen non-RPG-enculturated people make better roleplayers than most veterans.

Romantic fantasy is no further from pre-1975 fantasy than current D&D is, and a good deal closer to the mainstream of modern fantasy fiction than is D&D. People like to roleplay in settings that they enjoy imagining! Who is surprised some people like worlds with friendly people and fair social systems more than worlds of slaughter and subjugation?

The spectacle of Macho Gamer Guys feeling obliged to say how Aldea is not for them is really not pretty. And the habit of seeing everyone's political bias but your own -- like thinking foreigners have accents and you don't -- is transparent.

 

[Emiricol]

Yeah, it's amazing that a thread on Blue Rose would have people commenting about their opinions of Blue Rose.

 

[Faraer]

Here and on other threads there are posts doing that, and other posts where people talk about themselves and puff their chests out. It's a fear response, as has been noted.