The Pride Of Blue Rose

View attachment 85582​

After a successful Kickstarter project, Green Ronin Publishing have put out a second edition of their Blue Rose role-playing game. Inspired by the works of romantic fantasy from authors such as Mercedes Lackey, Tamora Pierce and Diane Duane, Blue Rose was originally powered by a variant of the D20 rules that Green Ronin called True20, and this new game uses the company's house system called the Adventure Game Engine, or AGE. The rules themselves are descended from the company's licensed role-playing game based upon the franchise of the Dragon Age computer games.

The design team of Steve Kenson and Jack Norris manage to bring the inspirations of the original Blue Rose game into the newer AGE system. Since Kenson worked on developing the True20 system that powered the first edition of the game, this makes sense. Blue Rose is a self-contained book that doesn't require any other AGE system book for play. It isn't just a matter of pushing the existing world of Aldea into the AGE rules, however. The rules of Blue Rose are set apart from games like Fantasy AGE by the incorporation of some first edition rules.

Conviction is a mechanic that was an important part of the first edition of Blue Rose. It is a narrative control tool, not unlike Fate Points in Fate Core, or a number of other role-playing games. Spending conviction can do things from helping your character in combats, to helping them better survive the effects of those combat situations. Fate point mechanics are good ways to create a cinematic, swashbuckling tone for a game because they can help to mitigate the impact that poor dice rolling can have on such a game. Few things can as quickly ruin a campaign as the randomness of dice rolling undercutting the fact that characters are supposed to be doing flashy, larger than life things and failing because the player rolled a one.

The 3d6 dice rolling for the task resolution systems of AGE does also help to get rid of some of the whiff factor of the original rules, which used the standard D20 mechanic of rolling a single d20 die for task resolution. A part of the reason why rules like the original Conviction rules sprang up around D20 variants was because of the fact that d20-based resolution can often be binary in its results: you succeed or you fail at a task. More often the result is failure, and slows down play while a task is attempted over and over, looking for the needed success. A 3d6 resolution mechanic can also add granularity to resolution attempts, making it possible to add degrees of success that can make results more spectacular, or more horrible, than a simple binary "You Succeed!" or "You Fail!"

The AGE stunt mechanic can also add more long term verisimilitude to task resolution. Rolling doubles on two of the three dice can earn your character stunt points which can be spent later one to add flourishes to future tasks on behalf of your character. There are a number of ways to utilize stunt points, from magic to interactions to other character abilities.

Characters are class-based, and informed by the three generic classes that were used in the original game (which in turn were adapted from material published in the Unearthed Arcana book published by Wizards of the Coast for the Dungeons & Dragons 3.x rules), and updated to the current rules. The Fantasy AGE rules do use a similar set up for the game's classes, but the design of the classes in Blue Rose is to my eye a bit more generic than those rules. This isn't a bad thing, because there are a number of ways to differentiate one character from another in these rules. Where the classes give the basic niche of your character (magic for Adepts, fighting for Warriors and skills and knowledge for Experts), the customization for characters comes with focuses, talents and specializations. These are all things from the AGE rules. Focuses are focused, specialized areas within the abilities of your characters that make them better at specific sorts of tasks. Talents are special abilities available to characters. Specializations work in a way similar to how prestige classes worked under the D20 system, they represent a specialized capability or profession within the more general classes, they also unlock talents that would not otherwise be available to a character. Where you have the generic Warrior that represents the idea of the fighter-type of characters, you can show how your Warrior is different from another in your group by picking things like the Berserker or the Champion specialization for your character. These specializations are how you build upon the wider, and more generic, niche of your character's class, and customize that niche into something more unique for your character.

If you've played a D20 game, the talents will be mechanically familiar to you because they work not unlike that system's feats. They give characters special abilities and special rules exceptions that let them do extraordinary tasks within a game.

There are also human cultures and non-human races that are available to characters. The non-human races are flavorful, and offer a number of meaningful role-playing opportunities to players. They are unique to the setting of Blue Rose, and while they are obviously inspired by fantasy concepts like elves and orcs, they manage to bring new ideas and interpretations of these archetypes to the gaming table. Vata, for example, clearly aren't elves (despite filling a similar niche within the world), but at the same time they aren't the "Nope. These totally aren't elves." approach that you get in a lot of games. They are original concepts that do not derive their concepts from running down the archetypes. This is a welcome change in RPG world building.

All of these character options work to add uniqueness to characters without adding a lot of complexity to them. Despite the AGE rules drawing inspiration from the D20 system, and some ideas from earlier editions of D&D as well, they do so in a much more streamlined manner than the D20 rules manage. There are as many special cases for GMs to remember in the AGE rules, and there aren't as many character options for players to wade through either.

Another mechanic that has come over from the first edition of Blue Rose would be the Corruption rules. Corruption is something that fits into the theme of the romantic fantasy that the game emulates. In a way it is a mechanical implementation of the oft-quoted Bob Dylan song lyric: "to live outside the law, you must be honest." Taken from his song Absolutely Sweet Marie the idea is something that you often see in heroic fiction, and comic books. The idea of Corruption is that the darkness of the world, which is literal in a world where magic and supernatural creatures are real, can taint even those who are the most good, tempting them to follow a darker, and sometimes easier, path. These are conflicts that you see in a lot of romantic fantasy, and in settings like that of the Star Wars universe, with its internal and external conflicts between the Jedi and the Sith. Embracing this Corruption is easier for characters in Blue Rose sometimes, but "easy" isn't always the best path for heroes.

The Corruption mechanic ties into Callings, which are another character option. Callings aren't as simple as talents or specializations, because they address how a character fits into the world of the game, or into the overall story of the campaign that a group is playing through. Following through with the ideals of a Calling is how a character earns Conviction. Callings will tell you how your character moves towards their long and short term goals. Like with Corruption, Callings are an idea carried over from the first edition of Blue Rose and help to show how your character is a part of the game's world.

The setting of Blue Rose, the world of Aldea, is where the game really sings. Rather than relying on the same tropes that inform just about every other fantasy game on the market, or call back to the same set of inspirations (whether drawing upon Tolkien or Howard or Moorcock), the game instead looks to the tropes that are important to romantic fantasy. Obviously, romance is one of these things, but gender and sexuality can also play important parts of romantic fantasy. Romantic fantasy not only elevates the women who are characters out of the secondary roles that they often fill in more traditional style of fantasy, but they make them the protagonists of the stories as well. Yes, Jirel of Joiry exists. Yes, Red Sonja exists. Yes, there are women-lead stories in high fantasy and swords and sorcery fiction. No one is saying that these characters, these stories, do not exist. The problem is that for those genres they are still the exception rather than the rule. There are still more stories and movies with male protagonists than female ones in these genres. That is one of the strengths of romantic fantasy, and the draw of it for a lot of people who do not identify as traditionally male in any number of ways.

It isn't coincidence that this review is "coming out" after the weekend that many celebrate Pride around the world, and in the same week as the anniversary of the Stonewall Riots that triggered what we would eventually come to know as Pride. Blue Rose normalizes homosexual relationships in the same way that heterosexual relationships are normalized in other fantasy settings. In worlds where shape shifting, magical fleshshaping and magical artifacts that can impact gender or presentation are so common, it shouldn't be such a strange idea that people would be free to adopt the gender, or genders, with which they identify themselves, even if they are not born that way. On the world of Aldea, like in many real world religions, not all deities conform to the binary standards of gender, and because of that the people who worship those gods should not be required to do this either. Obviously some cultures are more accepting of this than others, but overall the world is one that has much, much more of what is called an egalitarian nature than what you see in a lot of fantasy worlds. The idea that the existence of magic or werewolves in a game is okay, but somehow men marrying one another, or individuals choosing the gender (or genders) with which they identify, "break fantasy" is a strange one for me.

There are a number of lands that fill the world of Aldea. The lands of Aldis are assumed to be where player characters are from, while the antagonists are typically those people from the Theocracy of Jarzon or Kern, which was once ruled with a brutal hand by a Lich King. All three of these countries are outlined, but Aldis is given the lion share of description. A couple of other countries are outlined as well, and the nomadic culture of Roamers is talked about as well. The world of Aldea is well described, and everything that you might need to explore the world is contained in the Blue Rose book.

The designers did a great job of customizing the AGE rules to fit the Blue Rose game, and making sure that the new game lives up to the legacy of the first edition. I was a fan of the first edition of Blue Rose, not just because of the well-designed rules, but also because of the unique setting. I don't think that fantasy role-playing games push at the boundaries of the genre in the same way that the fiction does. We need more boundary pushing in RPGs across the board, if we ever want to see the fanbase expand and grow in new directions. Games like Blue Rose are an integral part of this boundary pushing and growth, and we need more well-made games like this.

 

[SMHWorlds]

Probably the earliest version of a fate point mechanic (that I can think of off the top of my head) goes all the way back to the 80s and TSR's original Marvel Super-Heroes game. Karma was a fate point mechanic, and it even was a carrot/stick reward system for making people have their characters act in a way that was in line with comic book super-heroes.

I was just thinking that too. I am trying to think of an earlier version but I really can't. The way a party could use and lose karma was pretty useful in the game.

 

[SMHWorlds]

Just a few thoughts...

Narrative Control

This is an interesting concept that I am not sure is well understood. Heck I won't claim I have it nailed down entirely. But to the point of this particular conversation, I feel that players always have a degree of narrative control, both over their characters and over the world at large. All of this regardless of mechanics. Now it may be shallow and narrow - "You are going to Dungeon X and open every door starting on the right, because mazes." At least you can determine how or if you fight the denizens of the dungeon and other albeit limited choices. Your choices may be broad and deep - "This is your home village of Witch/Devil/Knight - Bridge/Wood/River, and to the east is Dungeon X, to the north the caves of the Kraken drinking Squid god...". This gives you a wide range of things to do. However the world works though, what you do is logically governed by player knowledge, not character knowledge.

Levels, Hit Dice (old school) or CR (new school) determine more often than not if you as a player will take on an encounter. As does story structure and game expectation. You do not go take on the boss until you soften up minions both for in game tactical reasons, but also hero's journey reasons. All of those pesky rules inform player decisions, not character decisions. We all hear about the crazy 1st level barbarian who punched Vecna, but that almost never happens because however dumb the character, the player steps in and authors a reason for the 1st level character not to do that.

Random Chance

Do you know what the percentage of wounding or killing blows are on a typical sword fight? How about bullet fired to bullet hit on a modern battle field or police incident? I do not know either (some folks may), but even the most professional of professionals hit less than half the time? Baseball players who are average get a hit 25 out of 100 times; the great one 30 to 45 times out of 100? The point is, in an attempt to take into account random factors and skill, we roll dice. d6 to d20 (or d100), this random act judges our success or failure. It has nothing to do with character choice other than is he or she using their optimal skill in the optimal way, though even that may be a player choice as opposed to a character one. Random chance can be cruel however, and does not always reflect the actual skill of the character. In the end, the dice are just part of the negotiation between Man (Woman) and Nature (GM, World, Tiamat, etc..) over whether a particular action succeeds or fails.

Fate Points, Luck Points, Karma, and Authoring

So this extra currency, fate or luck or karma, can come into play for times when the dice negotiation may or may not resemble an internally consistent world logic. The player can say "hold on, this is an important role, I want to spend some currency" to change or improve the results of the negotiation. It is not handing author level of control to the player (not necessarily so, in some games it does), but is only continuing the extremely long line of author and player decisions that lead the character to this point. These points simply remove a level of randomness from the game. That's it.

Role playing games are a negotiated social contract, authored by all involved, not just the GM. Players make authorial decisions all the time "I don't feel like dungeons today." After the GM made a dungeon for you to play in, today. Like you asked previously. You are changing the narrative in a (forgive me) meta kind of way. So to point to Fate or Luck and say "Wo! I don't want to affect the outcome like that" seems odd to me, since every decision we make as players has consequence of ensuring our tactical success going forward. The Advantage / Disadvantage system in 5e does the same thing. Increases or decreases a chance of success. Where fate and luck may be different than say skill choice or getting a +1 sword, is that typically come in post-roll.

In the end, if you do not like a system hen don't play it, don't buy it, don't support it in any way. Voting with our wallets is always the most effective way of handling our likes and dislikes.

Also, dunno if this is where people draw some of their stance discussion from, but it is what I am familiar with (whether I agree or disagree with it notwithstanding) and likely a useful read in any case.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/4/

 

[Bedrockgames]

Just a few thoughts...

Narrative Control

This is an interesting concept that I am not sure is well understood. Heck I won't claim I have it nailed down entirely. But to the point of this particular conversation, I feel that players always have a degree of narrative control, both over their characters and over the world at large. All of this regardless of mechanics. Now it may be shallow and narrow - "You are going to Dungeon X and open every door starting on the right, because mazes." At least you can determine how or if you fight the denizens of the dungeon and other albeit limited choices. Your choices may be broad and deep - "This is your home village of Witch/Devil/Knight - Bridge/Wood/River, and to the east is Dungeon X, to the north the caves of the Kraken drinking Squid god...". This gives you a wide range of things to do. However the world works though, what you do is logically governed by player knowledge, not character knowledge.

I think the issue of narrative control is really a different conversation but I do think when people talk about narrative control in games they have in mind mechanics that give players powers normally reserved for the GM. Blurring what that means by pointing to vague ways players also might have some kind of narrative control in other parts of the game, I don't think helps discussion much. Not saying narrative control is bad, but it is a thing. And it is difficult to talk about from any angle if we don't give it clear definition. I see a big difference between shaping the flow of events by playing the game through my character and my character's eyes, and shaping the flow of events by invoking a mechanic that allows me (the player) to adjust what is going on. When someone tells me they don't like the narrative mechanics or narrative control of a game, it is pretty obvious to me what they mean. So it can be useful.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Correct me if I'm wrong. For what I read, your argument is that collaborating in making the story is equal to not roleplaying your character.

If you're making decisions as your character would make them, then you're roleplaying. If you're making decisions in some other capacity, then you're not roleplaying. That's all there is to it.

When you look over the guard you just knocked out to see if he had a dagger on him, that's roleplaying. When you decide that the guard had a dagger on him, and spend the point to make it so, then that's not roleplaying. This is the specific example that came up when I was doing some basic research on whether or not to purchase 7th Sea 2E.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Alright, for those who don't like fate point mechanics (for whatever reason), here's a list of things Conviction can do:
* reroll a die
* gain bonus to defense without using an action
* have an extra major or minor action
* immediately heal some amount or shake off a debilitating effect
* stabilise character if dying
* resist Corruption (or permanently reduce Corruption)

All of the effects could be thought of as mechanical representation of determination, so there is a way to avoid breaking immersion, if that's what you're looking for.

Thank you. That was exactly what I was hoping to hear.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

If you're making decisions as your character would make them, then you're roleplaying. If you're making decisions in some other capacity, then you're not roleplaying. That's all there is to it.

When you look over the guard you just knocked out to see if he had a dagger on him, that's roleplaying. When you decide that the guard had a dagger on him, and spend the point to make it so, then that's not roleplaying. This is the specific example that came up when I was doing some basic research on whether or not to purchase 7th Sea 2E.

I'm stealing this for use in future discussions. Thank you.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

This is the sort of misunderstandings that I suspect that Helton is talking about. Neither the player nor the character decides there is a convenient rock to behind: the GM does. And these are also things that can be done in-character. A player can slide a Fate point to the GM while saying, "I'm looking for any rocks to hide behind in this valley pass, do I see any?" But it's the GM's fiat to accept or reject that Fate point when deciding if large enough rocks are there. I don't understand why the GM and their arbitration of the rules gets forgotten when discussing Fate points.

You're still putting the player into the position to declare how the world works, even if there's an authority which can over-rule them. The game wants the player to suggest such things, and the rules are written in such a way as to encourage that.

The whole economy of Fate points is balanced around the concept that what the player wants is not necessarily what the character wants, which is why the player is rewarded for accepting compels and penalized for ignoring them. The book states this directly. A player could try to ignore the meta-game aspect of the Fate point economy, but they would be working against the system the whole way, and it would likely not go well for them. In order to really play the game in a meaningful capacity, you need to accept that early failures will causally lead to success later on - again, the book states this directly - but that isn't a premise which really works from an RP perspective.

 

[SMHWorlds]

I think the issue of narrative control is really a different conversation but I do think when people talk about narrative control in games they have in mind mechanics that give players powers normally reserved for the GM. Blurring what that means by pointing to vague ways players also might have some kind of narrative control in other parts of the game, I don't think helps discussion much. Not saying narrative control is bad, but it is a thing. And it is difficult to talk about from any angle if we don't give it clear definition. I see a big difference between shaping the flow of events by playing the game through my character and my character's eyes, and shaping the flow of events by invoking a mechanic that allows me (the player) to adjust what is going on. When someone tells me they don't like the narrative mechanics or narrative control of a game, it is pretty obvious to me what they mean. So it can be useful.

I am not (intentionally) blurring lines at all. I am stating that there is no difference between making a random die roll to determine whether a character did something they want to do and adding a little extra "something" to make the odds more in their own favor. Both are mechanics that can be built into the game (one more traditional than the other) and both can either be seen as working through the character's eyes in their logical world, or as necessary mechanical interlopers designed for conflict resolution. To say dice rolling doesn't pull you out of character but fate points do, seems disingenuous.

Especially if:
1. The points are distributed in a fair way or earned through good role playing
AND/OR
2. The GM also has access to the same or a balancing system so that they can prevent characters from blowing through every conflict as if they were gods.

It does not (necessarily) give them any more control over the world then they had before, it only sands down the random nature of dice mechanics. Of course some do and some games embrace the idea that players have a degree of authorship over the world. Certainly that is not for everyone.

As for the notion of narrative control, I agree it may be best in it's own thread. That said, I also understand what people mean when they talk about narrative control and my feelings about that are that the player, even in a traditional games, have a fair degree of authorship and narrative control, much to the chagrin of frustrated GMs everywhere. This is through both character action AND player action. So for someone to be put off by having to use luck points to alter a given outcome seems strange to me, because players game those outcomes all the time. Weak characters conveniently avoid advanced monsters. Skilled and experienced characters pick on NPCs who they know have no chance to resist their charms. Both of those situations are not organic in play decisions; they are player decisions and they are directing, not so much authoring, as players to protect their characters. I am not saying that is bad, I am saying we do it as players all the time and at the end of the day fate or luck is not really different than what we have been doing. It is just evening or stacking the odds in our favor, which any character would do if they could.

 

[pemerton]

why would someone bother reframing this sort of thing as determination (or some other in-character interpretation) when they can just play a system that doesn't have the points in the first place.

Putting to one side that, if we're talking about Blue Rose's Conviction mechanic, then no reframing seems to be required - someone might do that because they want a system in which trying and determination/resolve makes a difference to resolution.

 

[pemerton]

Roleplaying is essentially player input pretending to be character input. There is a fundamental disconnect between player knowledge and character knowledge, which rubs both ways. My character does not know what I as a player knows, and I do not know everything that my character knows. Your entire character backstory is a product of player input. But it's also not something that someone creates whole cloth, but piece by piece, often in the gameplay itself. Do you honestly sit there as a player and chart out every single NPC that your character ever knew in their backstory? Every memory? Every event in your storied life? Do you really know no one apart from pre-established NPCs in this city? But your character invented a sister for your character! She was not pre-established. Who said she existed? Do you expect that the GM would laboriously create every single one of those characters for you prior to gameplay?

This is what I find immersive about Fate's system. You dismissively refer to it as inventing the fact that they exist on the spot, but I find that it allows for simultaneous character-discovery and world-development. It's me as a player establishing my character and their story as I play, because I don't know everything about my character even if I operate with the conceit that I do. As a player, I am discovering my character, and the more that I discover, the more immersed that I become.

I tend to have detailed backstories - 2 or 3 pages of notes, quotes, and history. Stuff like staying I have a sister - I do that outside actual playtime - in character generation or after the actual playtime in session. If I was playing in the situation we were talking about - Instead of saying "I know a friend that can help me, I spend a fate point and get a bonus to roll" - I would, in character, consider "You know, having someone that knows about this stuff would be helpful" and develop a relationship with such an NPC.

I share Aldarc's preferences. I find that if players aren't allowed to play their PCs' knowledge - which, for all the reasons Aldarc gives, is going to require making stuff up at the table - then those PCs seem (in effect) like fish out of water, aliens who are strangers in their own homelands.

In my experience, this extends beyond NPCs. In my 4e game, for instance, the player of the invoker/wizard PC makes up stuff about the nature of magic all the time, in the course of playing his PC. If the player couldn't (in character) spout truths about magic, how would he immerse in a character who (the mechanics tell us) is one of the most magically skilled and knowledgeable beings in the multiverse?

That works for you, which is wonderful. It doesn't work for me

<snip>

Again, just my preferred playstyle.

In my first post about this subject I mentioned I was on the extreme end.

<snip>

I've tried them, I find them immersion breaking. That won't change.

I haven't seen anyone questioning your experience. What I read Aldarc as doing is taking issue with some of your description of that experience. That is to say: You may be extreme in your dislike of "fate points" and similar mechanics; you may be extreme in your inability to immerse in games which include such mechanics; but that doesn't mean that you are extreme in your desire for immersion. Immersion is hugely important to me, but for the reasons that Aldarc gives, a game of the sort you prefer would be immersion-breaking for me.

One way this plays out, which is quite important to me, is the following: I like to play characters who are devout, and who have faith in the deliverances of providence. Sometimes, those characters fail in their actions. In a Conan-esque game, where it is taken for granted that human existence is subject to the brute and uncaring forces of the cosmos, those failures would be a reason to abandon such naivety. But I prefer a game in which that conclusion - ie the conclusion that belief in providence is naive - is not forced upon my character by the vicissitudes of the dice. One way to do this - to avoid the Conan-esque conclusion - is to leave it open what caused the failure. My devout character can think that successes or failures are themselves the workings of providence. And nothing in the fiction or the mechanics need make that false - provided that the GM is not the sole participant in the game entitled to make it true or false, in the fiction, that providence is or is not at work.

A game in which I was obliged to suppose that the random chance of the dice represents nothing more, in the fiction, then the random workings of a cold and uncaring world, would be one in which I could not immerse in a devout character unless I was immersing in that character as a fool. Whereas I prefer my devout characters to be closer to (say) Arthur or Aragorn than Don Quixote.

I'm very much in the mode that what is on your character sheet defines what you do mechanically, but position in world, personality and such are played without mechanical intervention (for the most part). I don't see how being "the worlds greatest detective" should help me improve my roll to investigate - it should be my investigation skill is so high, that the definition come from how good I am, not that I get bennies from a definition, if that makes sense.

As for the +4 to investigate - in my mind if 2 characters have the same skill roll they are equally good at something.

In D&D there are considerations other than skill bonuses that determine how good someone is at something - eg number of attacks per round; or a feat or class ability (say, the 5e rogue's Cunning Action or Reliable Talent).

So it's not as if FATE is doing something weird in allowing multiple factors to determine how good a character is at something.

And as far as the description - in D&D, being a Fighter makes me better at fighting (eg multiple attacks, better hp), or being a Thief makes me better at climbing (Second Story Work). Choosing that archetype, rather than some other, makes a difference to the PC's mechanical capabilities ie the definition provides bennies, not vice versa. A FATE character being better at investigating because s/he is The World's Greatest Detective is no different from these D&D examples.