Tell me about Blue Rose
- Thread starter Narfellus
- Start date
Arrgh! Mark!
First Post
Faraer:
You blatantly attack me for having an obvious 'fear' response (To what, I might add? To homosexual imagery or some such?). And yet you have no clue to my sexuality or motivation. Did you not read my post when I mentioned that I supported the ideas of Blue Rose? Do you think I should like Blue Rose because it acceeds to your views of political correctness?
If you are attacking me about homophobia, I might note that several campaigns have homosexual characters in them and one of my players is a lesbian. And she doesn't whinge about my patriarchal forcing of her to play Swords and Sorcery. She just plays the game and has fun. A lesson to be learned I expect.
I actively say I would like to widen the demographic of gamers, not lessen it.
When I say roleplaying draws more on classic fantasy (Howard, Lieber, perhaps Vance, Wolf, and some of those slightly later writers) and mythology than modern fantasy (Mercedes Lackey, Andre Norton, etc) I'm not attempting to force any phallo-centric ideology on anyone. I'm saying the flat truth. In D+D, magic is Vancian, the 'adventure' rolls well around the same situation that Lieber started off. This is where the modern gamer sits, not with Mercedes Lackey and her cohorts.
If you are saying that Wargaming and traditional D+D is a bunch of homophobes sitting around, and that the fact they shouldn't talk about their issues with the game on a board devoted to gaming, you should watch your words. I take it only your viewpoint is the correct one.
Then you say Modern fantasy is a far cry from modern D+D. I agree. It is. I also mention that this could be a problem for the sales of Blue Rose, simply because the Average Gamer is more uninterested than interested in this case. Regardless on your views on what the Average Gamer is, thats a guess of mine that I'm hoping won't come true. I also question whether Blue Rose has the advertising ability to draw it's target audience into roleplaying. Note that it's target audience isn't those who roleplay already.
Who is suprised that people like fair systems, etc.
Me. I'm suprised and so is everyone else. The main beef that everyone has with this system is not its condonation of homosexuality, artwork, or ideas of romantic fantasy. It's the fact that everything comes in black, white, and black with potential. There is a possible game if you ignore most of the flavor text. Most GM's will be hard pressed to think of an interesting adventure in Aldis. I can think of a vast variety of adventures in Jerzon or Kern or whatever they are called. Interesting, complex nations. The tone of the book tells you that they are wrong, evil and should be destroyed or changed.
The thing is, the hard work of doing good has already been done in Aldis. It's just upkeep from then on. It's heroic to fight against inevitable odds. It's not heroic to fight with the whole of the Queens guards backing you up and every new town has healers who'll fix you up. One example that occurs to me is a mention of pirates. It seems that while some are evil, most go about and just look for treasure. Yeah, right.
You seem to assume that if I don't like your style of game I'm a homophobic chest-puffer anxious to prove his masculinity past a closeted fear of being labelled girly. Hopefully I have demonstrated that this isn't true. I have well wishes for Blue Rose, but as a DM I would never play it without extensive modification of the world, or setting it far from Aldis. This isn't because I'm afraid of the world. It's because I find the main premise pointless.
Your mention of chest puffing and Macho Gamer Guys yapping on about Blue Rose might have some basis in truth in other places. But so far I haven't seen a great deal of it here, at least from the people who have read the book.
I take it the Quiche applies to everyone equally
You blatantly attack me for having an obvious 'fear' response (To what, I might add? To homosexual imagery or some such?). And yet you have no clue to my sexuality or motivation. Did you not read my post when I mentioned that I supported the ideas of Blue Rose? Do you think I should like Blue Rose because it acceeds to your views of political correctness?
If you are attacking me about homophobia, I might note that several campaigns have homosexual characters in them and one of my players is a lesbian. And she doesn't whinge about my patriarchal forcing of her to play Swords and Sorcery. She just plays the game and has fun. A lesson to be learned I expect.
I actively say I would like to widen the demographic of gamers, not lessen it.
When I say roleplaying draws more on classic fantasy (Howard, Lieber, perhaps Vance, Wolf, and some of those slightly later writers) and mythology than modern fantasy (Mercedes Lackey, Andre Norton, etc) I'm not attempting to force any phallo-centric ideology on anyone. I'm saying the flat truth. In D+D, magic is Vancian, the 'adventure' rolls well around the same situation that Lieber started off. This is where the modern gamer sits, not with Mercedes Lackey and her cohorts.
If you are saying that Wargaming and traditional D+D is a bunch of homophobes sitting around, and that the fact they shouldn't talk about their issues with the game on a board devoted to gaming, you should watch your words. I take it only your viewpoint is the correct one.
Then you say Modern fantasy is a far cry from modern D+D. I agree. It is. I also mention that this could be a problem for the sales of Blue Rose, simply because the Average Gamer is more uninterested than interested in this case. Regardless on your views on what the Average Gamer is, thats a guess of mine that I'm hoping won't come true. I also question whether Blue Rose has the advertising ability to draw it's target audience into roleplaying. Note that it's target audience isn't those who roleplay already.
Who is suprised that people like fair systems, etc.
Me. I'm suprised and so is everyone else. The main beef that everyone has with this system is not its condonation of homosexuality, artwork, or ideas of romantic fantasy. It's the fact that everything comes in black, white, and black with potential. There is a possible game if you ignore most of the flavor text. Most GM's will be hard pressed to think of an interesting adventure in Aldis. I can think of a vast variety of adventures in Jerzon or Kern or whatever they are called. Interesting, complex nations. The tone of the book tells you that they are wrong, evil and should be destroyed or changed.
The thing is, the hard work of doing good has already been done in Aldis. It's just upkeep from then on. It's heroic to fight against inevitable odds. It's not heroic to fight with the whole of the Queens guards backing you up and every new town has healers who'll fix you up. One example that occurs to me is a mention of pirates. It seems that while some are evil, most go about and just look for treasure. Yeah, right.
You seem to assume that if I don't like your style of game I'm a homophobic chest-puffer anxious to prove his masculinity past a closeted fear of being labelled girly. Hopefully I have demonstrated that this isn't true. I have well wishes for Blue Rose, but as a DM I would never play it without extensive modification of the world, or setting it far from Aldis. This isn't because I'm afraid of the world. It's because I find the main premise pointless.
Your mention of chest puffing and Macho Gamer Guys yapping on about Blue Rose might have some basis in truth in other places. But so far I haven't seen a great deal of it here, at least from the people who have read the book.
I take it the Quiche applies to everyone equally
Last edited:
The quiche goes where the quiche will, dude.
On a minor side-note -- I believe that the BR folks specifically said that they weren't trying to make a game to appeal to the core gamer. They were trying to make a game to appeal to someone who might be open to the idea of roleplaying but wasn't interested in what you're calling classic fantasy (Howard, Lieber, and pals).
So you're completely right in that the game may not work well for the average gamer, because that's not who it was designed for. It was designed, to make a wide sweeping broad generalization, for the drama-geek who enjoys reading novels involving magic that flows from beauty or music and probably sings to whales or unicorns or rainbows or something. There's no way for me to write that without it sounding derogatory, but given that I'm currently reading and enjoying a novel about a girl raised by talking wolves who then has to try to learn how to be a princess, I'm in that target audience somewhere, at least on the fringes. But the folks who aren't me, who don't like that stuff as well as Lieber, have had to either heavily modify or stay away from roleplaying games, because roleplaying games today are, as you noted, built off of the classic fantasy.
So, I think you're right -- it's not very appealing to the average gamer geek... because the average gamer geek wasn't the target audience. And they've been saying that for quite some time now on their messageboards and in their FAQs.
Quiche, Apple Pie. Apple Pie, Quiche. Seriously.
On a minor side-note -- I believe that the BR folks specifically said that they weren't trying to make a game to appeal to the core gamer. They were trying to make a game to appeal to someone who might be open to the idea of roleplaying but wasn't interested in what you're calling classic fantasy (Howard, Lieber, and pals).
So you're completely right in that the game may not work well for the average gamer, because that's not who it was designed for. It was designed, to make a wide sweeping broad generalization, for the drama-geek who enjoys reading novels involving magic that flows from beauty or music and probably sings to whales or unicorns or rainbows or something. There's no way for me to write that without it sounding derogatory, but given that I'm currently reading and enjoying a novel about a girl raised by talking wolves who then has to try to learn how to be a princess, I'm in that target audience somewhere, at least on the fringes. But the folks who aren't me, who don't like that stuff as well as Lieber, have had to either heavily modify or stay away from roleplaying games, because roleplaying games today are, as you noted, built off of the classic fantasy.
So, I think you're right -- it's not very appealing to the average gamer geek... because the average gamer geek wasn't the target audience. And they've been saying that for quite some time now on their messageboards and in their FAQs.
Quiche, Apple Pie. Apple Pie, Quiche. Seriously.
The Great Bear King
First Post
If you don't like the campaign setting simply, include these words on Magic Deer's hoves, Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the shadows lie.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
Or,
I am the way into the doleful place,
I am the way into eternal grief,
I am the way to a forsaken race.
Justice it was that moved my great creator;
Divine omnipotence created me,
And highest wisdom joined with primal love.
Before me nothing but eternal things
Were made, and I shall last eternally.
Abandon every hope, all you who enter.
Who's to say that Sauron or the Devil have influence in only one world.
Oh, Serge my computer can't display the Gates of Hell PDF's so would you let me download a non PDF copy of your Cardinal of "Magic Deer" priestige class.![:]](http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png "Devious :]")
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the shadows lie.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
Or,
I am the way into the doleful place,
I am the way into eternal grief,
I am the way to a forsaken race.
Justice it was that moved my great creator;
Divine omnipotence created me,
And highest wisdom joined with primal love.
Before me nothing but eternal things
Were made, and I shall last eternally.
Abandon every hope, all you who enter.
Who's to say that Sauron or the Devil have influence in only one world.
Oh, Serge my computer can't display the Gates of Hell PDF's so would you let me download a non PDF copy of your Cardinal of "Magic Deer" priestige class.
Last edited:
mmadsen said:
How many times does Conan get tossed in jail because he refuses to acknowledge the petty and needless laws of whatever weak, decadent society he's currently in? How many times does he escape and wreak his big masculine revenge, proving that individual strength of character is more important than a collection of silly laws cobbled together by the weak-willed masses to drag down the truly strong? That seems to be one of the cornerstones of Howard's beliefs, right up there with "hit people with beef bones", "the serving girl always wants to sleep with you", and "most people with dark skin are evil." And while I'm not trying to imply that libertarians believe any of that other stuff, they almost all seem to agree that big government is bad.
A deeper analysis would require a) breaking the rules on political discussions and b) getting someone to define libertarian philosophy in a way that everyone could agree with, which seems to be more or less impossible.
WayneLigon
Adventurer
mmadsen said:
I should indeed reword that; it is anachronistic, but then so is a lot of stuff in D&D and most other midieval flavored RPG's and campaigns. What I meant was: 'Just because our world didn't have such ideas in the middle ages is no reason why another world cannot have them, and to have those ideas gain broad and popular support'.
BryonD
Hero
takyris said:
The initiation of force or fraud against other individuals is wrong.
That is as close as you will get to the official bottom line statement of values of the libertarian party. Which far and away wipes out any contortion into "killing things and taking their stuff".
It'd be closer to the truth to say all democrats are stalinists.
Edit: and it is certainly easy to point fingers at Howard's racial portayals. No denial there. But he was a pretty big supporter of government soci-economic intervention. It is interesting how his fiction often ran at odds with his own ideals. He presented Solomon Kane as a hero and glorified ideal of a religious dogma for which Howard himself pretty much felt contempt.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
