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.

 

[Aldarc]

Yeah, that is exactly why those hit me. As my purpose in gaming to become the character I would "cheating" if I didn't have reactions and emotions of that character when that event arises. While playing the GM has someone want the shield, I feel what the character is feeling "Hey, I'm the bearer" and have to work though, in character how he responds. That is the entire point of roleplaying for me - working through those things that I have defined for the character and explore the character's reaction to the world and situations around him. Having mechanics do that for me, takes away why I play.
It would be like a fight for people that love detailed tactical play (say D&D 4E) in games and rolling one simple roll to decide who won a fight.

I am not entirely sure that I get what you are saying here, particularly in regards to the connection between your sense of "cheating" and the shield example that I previously gave. I am especially confused because I don't see how the shield example would be problematic.

You give your character an aspect "Bearer of the Heraldric Shield," indicating that this is an important part of how you define your sense of your character (and their connection to the narrative-world) that you are RPing. Given that, I may decide that someone else wants this special shield you have, because they may regard themselves as the rightful heir. You are in a situation where this could potentially come up, such as at a knight's tournament. I, as the GM, alert you that I am drawing upon that aspect of your character (as per an aspect on your character sheet) to introduce this complication into the story, though likely not so woodenly as I do here. Nowhere do I tell your character how to feel or react or how they should work through the situation. I am simply introducing a narrative complication that ties into your character, based on how you yourself have defined your character (on your character sheet), and subsequently rewarding your character 'karma' for this potentially negative situation. We could even roleplay this entire scenario out first, and only when we finished roleplaying the scenario out, I would reward your character with a fate point.

Not familiar with Dungeon World.

It's more narrativist-oriented game system that often gets compared to Fate, as they have similar niches. From my passing familiarity, I recall that it has less of the Fate mechanics that tend to be immersion breakers for you. So it may be something worth looking into.

Blue rose is an amazing setting. I played it in the old version and like the new one. I'm likely not going to play it natively, as our group is HERO only, and I've found it hard to adapt that to solo play (due to it being a bit more lethal system than what I normally play, and unfamiliarity with system). the book is amazing looking, and I love the writing. Planning to play it with another system.

There is a lot that I like about Blue Rose (e.g., rules, magic system, tone), both True20 and AGE, but there is also stuff that puts me off, particularly in regards to the setting itself. For example, a number of the countries and cultures are treated almost as "planets of hats," in which there is clearly the singular, enlightened, beneficent and tolerant country of good mcgoodguyfaces, the oppressive theocracy, the semi-nomadic horse-riders, and the evil overlord(s) country. So some aspects of the world-building leaves the setting feeling somewhat stale for my tastes. Weirdly enough, I do think that the ruleset would work fairly well for a Sword & Sorcery campaign.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

I am not entirely sure that I get what you are saying here, particularly in regards to the connection between your sense of "cheating" and the shield example that I previously gave. I am especially confused because I don't see how the shield example would be problematic.

You give your character an aspect "Bearer of the Heraldric Shield," indicating that this is an important part of how you define your sense of your character (and their connection to the narrative-world) that you are RPing. Given that, I may decide that someone else wants this special shield you have, because they may regard themselves as the rightful heir. You are in a situation where this could potentially come up, such as at a knight's tournament. I, as the GM, alert you that I am drawing upon that aspect of your character (as per an aspect on your character sheet) to introduce this complication into the story, though likely not so woodenly as I do here. Nowhere do I tell your character how to feel or react or how they should work through the situation. I am simply introducing a narrative complication that ties into your character, based on how you yourself have defined your character (on your character sheet), and subsequently rewarding your character 'karma' for this potentially negative situation. We could even roleplay this entire scenario out first, and only when we finished roleplaying the scenario out, I would reward your character with a fate point.

Cheating isn't quite the right word - but it was close.

Basically in the above example - remove the whole mechanical "carrot" to encourage me to play in character, and the mechanical option to spend a bennie to overcoming that aspect as an option, and I'm fine.

Basically I want to play my character. Me. Nothing but me. If I have a character who is described as above, I should not need (nor do I want) mechanical intrusion on how my character reaction to the situation. As a good GM you are bringing in something that will make my character feel something, and force him to react to the situation - and I (through my character) responds to this situation. The reward of that, which is the entire reason I play, is to experience that scene as my character. To feel what he feels, to make choices based on his background, approach, and how he is feeling that day. To add a mechanical benny to it cheapens it.

Basically I play to become the character, and getting a reward for doing something that is reason I play feels like an outside intrusion on what I am doing anyway. Like it is trying to "force me" to roleplay my character. I don't need a reward for some future skill role or whatnot for playing my character, when playing IN character is the reason I game. It's like taking a foreign language class at university in a language you already know for the easy A. The class is there to teach you something new, not reward you for something you already know.

I hope that explains it better.

It's more narrativist-oriented game system that often gets compared to Fate, as they have similar niches. From my passing familiarity, I recall that it has less of the Fate mechanics that tend to be immersion breakers for you. So it may be something worth looking into.

Ah. I've heard about it, but never played it. The phrase "narrativist-oriented " means I will tend to skip a game. I tend not to like that approach.

 

[Aldarc]

For the sake of conversational flow, I hope you don't mind me moving a few things around.

Ah. I've heard about it, but never played it. The phrase "narrativist-oriented " means I will tend to skip a game. I tend not to like that approach.

Okay, I sometimes see D&D as too (war)gamist-oriented and Hero as too rules/crunch-heavy for roleplaying, but clearly you have not let that stop you from roleplaying them

Basically in the above example - remove the whole mechanical "carrot" to encourage me to play in character, and the mechanical option to spend a bennie to overcoming that aspect as an option, and I'm fine.

Basically I want to play my character. Me. Nothing but me. If I have a character who is described as above, I should not need (nor do I want) mechanical intrusion on how my character reaction to the situation. As a good GM you are bringing in something that will make my character feel something, and force him to react to the situation - and I (through my character) responds to this situation. The reward of that, which is the entire reason I play, is to experience that scene as my character. To feel what he feels, to make choices based on his background, approach, and how he is feeling that day. To add a mechanical benny to it cheapens it.

Basically I play to become the character, and getting a reward for doing something that is reason I play feels like an outside intrusion on what I am doing anyway. Like it is trying to "force me" to roleplay my character. I don't need a reward for some future skill role or whatnot for playing my character, when playing IN character is the reason I game.

I hope that explains it better.

You have explained yourself better, and I think that I have a better understanding of your point, but I still disagree with how this interferes with roleplaying, and I still feel that you are being unfairly hypocritical of Fate.

Fate points are not incongruent with what you describe above. None of it. You are still playing your character in Fate: nothing or nobody but you, even with GM compels. You still react to the situation as you choose. You still feel the scene as you choose. You still roleplay your character as you choose. You still make choices based on his background, approach, and how they are feeling that day. The GM telling you that someone enters the scene wanting your shield does not contradict any of the above (i.e., an event-compel), nor have you demonstrated how that would be the case. Your "roleplayer agency" remains entirely in-tact without any loss of integrity.

I don't think that adding a mechanical bennie to it is fundamentally different than XP rewards, the most longstanding, traditional mechanical bennie in the game, along with the entire concept of "leveling-up." Congratulations, you roleplayed well, here's some bonus XP. Congratulations, you killed those monsters, here's some XP. A lot of XP in D&D, however, is back-ended on defeating monsters, which puts the bennie incentives on certain actions or ways to play your character. (Murder Hobo = more efficient XP generation.) Characters in 5E D&D can now even be rewarded Inspiration for roleplaying according to their background. Again, I understand if you play differently, but I can only compare with RAW here and not your idiosyncratic game experiences, which I am not privvy to. Should you also complain about getting XP for killing monsters or resolving encounters when you would do that anyway? "Wah! Why is XP making me play my character? I was going to do this anyway, but the game keeps giving me stuff for doing it." You may not need these bennies to play IN character, but it's like any other artificial bennie in the game.

I have given some thought with how Fate differs from other systems in regards to these mechanical bennies, because pretending they don't exist in other systems (or tied to roleplaying) would be disingenuous. In contrast to many other games, Fate front-ends these bennies. The bennie is not given after your character has dealt with the complication (e.g. resolving the encounter, defeating the monster, etc.), but, rather, when your character decides to deal with the complication. It's not about your character achieving but about your character choosing. So from this perspective, this is why I find the idea that this is "close" to cheating or counter-productive to roleplaying to be utterly baffling to me. Because the latter seems more conducive to immersive roleplaying, as it places emphasis on character choice over character deed.

In short, fate points (and how they are used in Fate) are in no way incongruent with the bold. If you are not roleplaying for XP or leveling-up, then you should not worry yourself about roleplaying for fate points. It's simply a mechanical consequence of roleplaying. Just have fun. Immerse yourself in your character. Good roleplayers don't let the mechanics stand in their way.

It's like taking a foreign language class at university in a language you already know for the easy A. The class is there to teach you something new, not reward you for something you already know.

I disagree with your analogy here as well, and I think it's worth unpacking it a bit more in-depth.

In this analogy, you feel that you gain nothing new from this course, as this class is "unnecessarily" rewarding you for your prior knowledge, thereby generating a sense of ethical unease? (Shall we ignore the prevalence of this problem in real world courses? This is to say that students will have varying pre-existing knowledge of the subject matter coming into the course and that said knowledge provides the person with some inherent advantage in the course.)

So what is the nature of this class? Is it a Fate class or a roleplaying class? If it's the former, are you also enrolled in language classes for D&D and Hero? What do you get out of those classes? Are they also teaching you how to roleplay? Are those classes teaching you anything new? And if you are choosing to play D&D and Hero - and you already know how to roleplay flawlessly - doesn't that make you a different sort of "just taking it for the Easy A" student?

Roleplaying isn't a foreign language nor would you learn it as you would a foreign language. At the most basic level for any foreign language, you are learning grammar (and vocabulary). The grammar for any language is an imperfect, artificial, descriptive system. You are learning how to communicate within the system of the language's own rules. Every language system has its own norms and conventions. Learning a foreign language is more equivalent to learning a roleplaying system than it is to learning roleplaying. (The aforementioned descriptive quality of grammar does make the generally prescriptive nature of game rules an imperfect analogy, but it's more compatable than the prior analogy.)

You already know how to "communicate" (i.e. roleplay) in D&D and Hero, so you don't have to think about how to construct a sentence or converse. You know how to structure your thoughts and communicate within the contexts of a D&D or Hero conversation. You already know their grammatical rules or were natively reared in the language as your mothertongue. You are already fluent in the primary form of the language, and likely in the various regional/local dialects. You have alluded to this idea several times in this thread already. You already have systems/languages that work for your conversational purposes. You don't have to think about "conversing" in these "languages" because the aforementioned familiarity and you don't need other "languages" because you already have found "languages" that let you "converse."

If you were in a Fate class, then they are not teaching you how to roleplay - hopefully you don't need any course for that - but, instead, they are teaching you the conventions and norms of roleplaying within the particular parole of Fate's language. So it appears that you mistakenly believe that your "Fate 'foreign language' class" is simply a more general "roleplaying class."

So from my end of things, and do I apologize if this comes across too harshly or condescending as that is not my intent, but the analogy makes you sound less like a student fluent in Arabic taking an Arabic course for the Easy A, but more like the French-fluent student in an Arabic foreign language class complaining in French that they gain nothing out of the Arabic course because they already know how to hold a conversation in French: "Je ne génère rien en apprenant l'arabe, parce que je sais déjà comment converser." That student may know the basics of holding a conversation as a general concept, and they may insist that you know some grammar and vocabulary of the language, but the contention arises when their inability to hold a conversation in Arabic comes with with the judgment that a flaw exists in the Arabic language that prevents them from holding a fluent conversation in Arabic. Naturally, a native Arabic speaker (or anyone fluent enough in Arabic) would find that student's attitude problematic, if not condescending. Obviously not all languages come as easily to people as others. But if you want to converse in foreign language, then you practice, and best practiced through immersion in the language, which is a value I'm sure you would see as an immersive roleplayer.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

You have explained yourself better, and I think that I have a better understanding of your point, but I still disagree with how this interferes with roleplaying, and I still feel that you are being unfairly hypocritical of Fate.

[I'm not being hypercritial - this isn't a "failure" of fate. Fate is great, and it works fine for many people. Just not me.

Fate points are not incongruent with what you describe above. None of it. You are still playing your character in Fate: nothing or nobody but you, even with GM compels. You still react to the situation as you choose. You still feel the scene as you choose. You still roleplay your character as you choose. You still make choices based on his background, approach, and how they are feeling that day. The GM telling you that someone enters the scene wanting your shield does not contradict any of the above (i.e., an event-compel), nor have you demonstrated how that would be the case. Your "roleplayer agency" remains entirely in-tact without any loss of integrity.

I don't think that adding a mechanical bennie to it is fundamentally different than XP rewards, the most longstanding, traditional mechanical bennie in the game, along with the entire concept of "leveling-up." Congratulations, you roleplayed well, here's some bonus XP. Congratulations, you killed those monsters, here's some XP.

Ah but therin lies the rub - XP and other such things are given, discussed and such outside of actual play - I'm not immersed then. Fate points are within game. And to be honest when I am actually playing I tend to ignore XP as that a function of the system, not the story.

Just have fun. Immerse yourself in your character. Good roleplayers don't let the mechanics stand in their way.

So I can play a game of fate without worring about fate points?

I disagree with your analogy here as well, and I think it's worth unpacking it a bit more in-depth.

In this analogy, you feel that you gain nothing new from this course, as this class is "unnecessarily" rewarding you for your prior knowledge, thereby generating a sense of ethical unease? (Shall we ignore the prevalence of this problem in real world courses? This is to say that students will have varying pre-existing knowledge of the subject matter coming into the course and that said knowledge provides the person with some inherent advantage in the course.)

So what is the nature of this class? Is it a Fate class or a roleplaying class? If it's the former, are you also enrolled in language classes for D&D and Hero? What do you get out of those classes? Are they also teaching you how to roleplay? Are those classes teaching you anything new? And if you are choosing to play D&D and Hero - and you already know how to roleplay flawlessly - doesn't that make you a different sort of "just taking it for the Easy A" student?

Roleplaying isn't a foreign language nor would you learn it as you would a foreign language.

I see where you come from, and that analogy didn't work (I was trying to go with the "You paid money for university so taking a class you aren't learning something in seems a waste = I roleplay the way I do so fate point mechanics seem a waste"- so lets try this:


For me - The mechanics are there for no other reason than to represent skills that a character has that I do not have, and a resolution mechanic to tell me (and the GM) if that action at hand succeeded or failed. That is necessary to the structure. Anything else - that is the emerging story of the actions I choose to take as the character, and what happens in the world from the GM - that needs no mechanics. Mechanical intrusion on the emerging story (by whatever means) is a detriment to being in the moment of the story. And that is what I don't like a bout fate point (and other narrative/bennie mechanics) - they intrude into the moment and distract me from enjoying that moment. think of it as watching a movie, and being immersed in it, and someone comments on the cinematography. You may be aware of that cinematography, but it isn't at the forefront of your mind, the story and character is - but one that is said, you are pulled out of the moment, and the mechanics of the movie (cinematography) intrude. A GM saying "You have aspect X and you can earn a fate point if that comes up" is the guy mentioning cinematography.

Hope that is a better analogy.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

Okay, I sometimes see D&D as too (war)gamist-oriented and Hero as too rules/crunch-heavy for roleplaying, but clearly you have not let that stop you from roleplaying them

Posting this separately as it is a very different bit.
If we are going to use the threefold path terminology - I am a simulationist. D&D 3.x and Hero - the rules are the defining physics of the world - complex, detailed, and yes sometimes non-seniscal (the Continent wide "pass the item" in D&D 3.x).
But I play the game for a while, and all the detail become ingrained - so we never have to stop the game to make a judgement call, the rules are clear on most every situation - once those are known, then they fate out of though, become instinct, and all you are left with is focusing on character. I find narritivist games, because they are trying to enhance characterization or story with mechanics (not a bad goal, just not one that appeals to me) it pulls me out of the story and character - thus defeating the very purpose they are intended for, for me. So I generally avoid them.

To be honest the new Genesys RPG, with it's odd dice, looks interesting - possibly because the way the dice are rolled are (on the surface) so different from traditional roleplaying that it is a new thing to me - whereas something like fate feels too "classic" aside from fate point.

 

[pemerton]

I don't think that adding a mechanical bennie to it is fundamentally different than XP rewards, the most longstanding, traditional mechanical bennie in the game

I think I made this point somewhere upthread.

XP and other such things are given, discussed and such outside of actual play - I'm not immersed then. Fate points are within game. And to be honest when I am actually playing I tend to ignore XP as that a function of the system, not the story.

What affects any given person's immersion can be quite idiosyncratic, obviously.

But as a matter of abstract principle, there is nothing special about the end of the session as a time for managing things outside of play.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

But as a matter of abstract principle, there is nothing special about the end of the session as a time for managing things outside of play.

Agreed. I mostly meant the difference between "In character actually playing" and "outside of play time, thinking about system and XP" as different stages of the game session.

 

[Patrick McGill]

I got to try Blue Rose in college at some point. I really enjoyed the setting and making a character, though I felt (at the time, anyway, my perspective these days might be different) was that the morality was a little too simplistic for my liking. Very definite THIS KINGDOM IS TOTALITARIAN EVIL and THIS ONE IS A PARAGON OF PROGRESSIVE IDEOLOGY. Though these days our cup runneth over with gritty morally gray settings, so maybe it's needed.

The art was on point, and it seems to be even better this time around. Had a good time, though I don't really remember much of anything about the specific campaign. Those were wild days.

 

[Aldarc]

Ah but therin lies the rub - XP and other such things are given, discussed and such outside of actual play - I'm not immersed then. Fate points are within game. And to be honest when I am actually playing I tend to ignore XP as that a function of the system, not the story.

Which is neither necessarily RAW nor universally true at tables. But again, notice that you are making a recognized choice to ignore XP as that function of the system with D&D (and other such games) but not with Fate and fate points. One could potentially move fate points, for example, to the end of the game session. (They do restore themselves at the end of a session anyway.) You could turn them into a more general "effort" or "re-roll" system that ties in with the character or attached to particular in-character stunts.

So I can play a game of fate without worring about fate points?

It depends on what you mean by "worrying about fate points." If you mean play without fate points, then I don't see why not, so long as the GM nor players invoked/compelled character aspects. The more difficult part would probably be with the Create Advantage action, which is about discovering and invoking aspects in the roleplay: e.g., "room on fire," "rocky terrain," or "flooding trap chamber." But I suppose that if you also find this redundant, since you may believe that you can roleplay anything without need of actions, then there would be little need for this action at all. Your character simply does and reacts, and your GM adjudicates if you can do a thing. This would move the game closer to its Fudge roots, and it would be arguably be better to play Fudge at this point since the aspect system is one of Fate's most clever innovations to Fudge. But in actual gameplay of Fate, I don't particularly see my players "[worried] about fate points," since they spend their focus roleplaying their characters in the story. They are fluent enough in Fate language to "ignore" or "worry about" the abstract mechanics of fate points just as they can for XP, "leveling-up," hit points, and other gamist mechanics in their D&D games.

For me - The mechanics are there for no other reason than to represent skills that a character has that I do not have, and a resolution mechanic to tell me (and the GM) if that action at hand succeeded or failed. That is necessary to the structure. Anything else - that is the emerging story of the actions I choose to take as the character, and what happens in the world from the GM - that needs no mechanics. Mechanical intrusion on the emerging story (by whatever means) is a detriment to being in the moment of the story. And that is what I don't like a bout fate point (and other narrative/bennie mechanics) - they intrude into the moment and distract me from enjoying that moment. think of it as watching a movie, and being immersed in it, and someone comments on the cinematography. You may be aware of that cinematography, but it isn't at the forefront of your mind, the story and character is - but one that is said, you are pulled out of the moment, and the mechanics of the movie (cinematography) intrude. A GM saying "You have aspect X and you can earn a fate point if that comes up" is the guy mentioning cinematography.

Hope that is a better analogy.

If you are so easily taken out of your immersion, you must be easily distracted by shiny objects then, aren't you? I still disagree with your analogy and your assessment of Fate, but you have explained yourself better here. For example, your hypothetical Fate GM has said something that I have not heard in a Fate game before inside the gameplay itself. That obvious rule implication would be established outside of the gameplay.

Posting this separately as it is a very different bit.
If we are going to use the threefold path terminology - I am a simulationist. D&D 3.x and Hero - the rules are the defining physics of the world - complex, detailed, and yes sometimes non-seniscal (the Continent wide "pass the item" in D&D 3.x).
But I play the game for a while, and all the detail become ingrained - so we never have to stop the game to make a judgement call, the rules are clear on most every situation - once those are known, then they fate out of though, become instinct, and all you are left with is focusing on character. I find narritivist games, because they are trying to enhance characterization or story with mechanics (not a bad goal, just not one that appeals to me) it pulls me out of the story and character - thus defeating the very purpose they are intended for, for me. So I generally avoid them.

Again, you are talking about language fluency. You don't have to think about these rules because you are already fluent. A number of people I know, would find the crunchiness of a lot of simulationist to be exceptionally distracting for roleplaying because rules adjudications and rules for every situation destroys their sense of roleplaying, and it would perhap destroys their immersion precisely from that "simulationist" side of things. But for my friends, Fate has become "ingrained" so the idea that fate points would break immersion would be preposterous, if not insulting, for them. They are fluent. And I have seen them spend a greater time "in-character" playing Fate than I have seen them "in-character" with 5E D&D, though they have the same degree of familiarity with both systems. Given that, then I would certainly be curious as to why that would be the case between these two systems and what each does differently that collectively empowers the RP aspect of my players.

To be honest the new Genesys RPG, with it's odd dice, looks interesting - possibly because the way the dice are rolled are (on the surface) so different from traditional roleplaying that it is a new thing to me - whereas something like fate feels too "classic" aside from fate point.

Genesys looks too gimmicky and rules heavy for my tastes, whereas Fate feels more like a system that does not let the rules get in the way of the roleplaying. Fate is a nice rules medium-rare system that tricks you into thinking that it's rules-rare.

 

[Aldarc]

[MENTION=4789]Lord Mhoram[/MENTION]: I prefer to abstain from double-posting, so forgive me. I have been giving your fate point conundrum a bit more thought, particularly the issue of playing Fate without worrying about fate points. I may have an easy possibility that hopefully you would be willing to entertain.

The biggest problems that you have raised regarding fate points has been (1) character compels and earning fate points (i.e. immersion breakers), and (2) what you perceive as its dissociative mechanics. So here is my suggestion.

(1) Remove compels entirely from your Fate game. No "cheating" rewards for playing your character or having your immersion broken by fate point haggling. So how do you get fate points back?

(2) Tie Fate points to the character via an X times per day/encounter mechanic. (You may have to adjust the standard.) Fate points are not earned via compels or refresh every session, but instead per the character in the world. This grounds fate points more closely to the character, namely as a character mechanic reflecting willpower/conviction, insight/luck, or energy/effort/morale.