Who's excited about Blue Rose?

[Fate Lawson]

Well, from what I can glean from the previews, this might be a good rule-set for doing a Vlad Taltos/Dragaeran Campaign. Of course, Loiosh and Rocza aren't exactly "furry".

 

[takyris]

I'd note that, regardless of what Blue Rose turns out to be, there's a difference between "can appeal to the roleplaying interests of people who like this kind of fantasy" and "exclused anyone who doesn't like this kind of fantasy".

I mean, I love a good love story, but Melanie Rawn leaves me cold. However, I'd be a ton more interested in running a game that used that kind of magic than another fireball fest. That's not a slam on fireball fests -- I've had boatloads of fun in the games I've run and played in -- but I'd be open to trying a game whose engine is built with a different goal in mind.

And heck, as Ranger REG noted, just about all the old Arthurian myths and legends included love stories -- but in my games, they're pretty much an afterthought. Since most of my guys play guys in our long-term campaigns, and since even when they don't, most of my guys would be uncomfortable with anything more than a cursory attempt at roleplaying a romance with a PC, it falls on me to create female NPCs to fall in love with 'em, and frankly, it's not worth the trouble. I'm interested in what Blue Rose has to offer, what it makes available and what new skill uses or feats or whatever it offers to make that kind of thing run well.

 

[Samurai]

Well, I'm not fond of anything that bills itself as "romance," and people would have to pay me to read Mercedes Lackey and her ilk.

That said, I'm going to buy this, and am, in fact, looking forward to it.

Why? As others have said, the mechanics. The more examples we get of narrative/non-tactical D20, the better. And it's Green Ronin, which means I can pretty much bet on getting my money's worth out of it.

With the exception that I have read 2 or 3 Mercedes Lackey books (they were ok, but not really my cuppa tea), I agree with this. I MUCH prefer fairly non-tactical, narrative combat. While I rather like most of the other d20 rules, that has been a gripe of mine since 3.0 came out. I'm hoping that these rules will be broadly useful in a variety of settings for GMs that prefer "I'm going to leap onto the bar, run down to the end of it, and dive into the whole group of them!" instead of "Well, it's a move equivalent action to climb up onto the bar, and besides, it's 35 feet long, so I couldn't quite make it to the end. Next round I'll try to dive into them, but I'll draw attacks of opportunity and have an AC penalty for charging... hmmm, maybe I should just forget all that."

 

[Turanil]

"I'm going to leap onto the bar, run down to the end of it, and dive into the whole group of them!"

instead of

"Well, it's a move equivalent action to climb up onto the bar, and besides, it's 35 feet long, so I couldn't quite make it to the end. Next round I'll try to dive into them, but I'll draw attacks of opportunity and have an AC penalty for charging... hmmm, maybe I should just forget all that."

LOL! I agree with you. Your example says it all.

 

[Aaron2]

LOL! I agree with you. Your example says it all.

Man, I couldn't disagree more. I had a player IMC who would constantly come up with these complicated descriptions of her character's actions, "I run over here and grab this from that guy's hand and run over there and put it on the other thing and then wildshape into an eagle and fly over ...".

It drove me feakin' nuts. It slowed things way down and broke everybody's rythm. But, then again, I'm one of those people who think AoOs actually make the game simpler.


Aaron

 

[Faraer]

I wouldn't be suprised if Blue Rose is successful for there to be a more traditional fantasy game released using similar rules.

The thing is, romantic fantasy (as good a term as any) is just as traditional as the other subgenres that came out of the 1970s heroic fantasy boom, also including high fantasy (direct Tolkien derivatives), D&D fantasy, military fantasy (see Green Ronin's Black Company RPG), etc. It's just that the male bias of RPGs (a historical accident stemming from their origin in wargaming) led this extremely popular branch to be neglected (though Dragonlance and the Realms, for instance, share some of its range of sensibility). It's as traditional as anything except early–mid-20th-century sword & sorcery.

With Blue Rose, the Black Company game, the Thieves' World license, Green Ronin is doing something like the mooted idea for a range of Player's Handbooks with different art styles to appeal to different demographics, but with the text.

Of course, GR's task is to market Blue Rose to non- (or borderline, or lapsed) RPGing readers of its source material, and that'll be the trick to doing more than break-even d20 sales.

 

[Justin D. Jacobson]

I wouldn't be suprised if Blue Rose is successful for there to be a more traditional fantasy game released using similar rules.

Blue Devil Games is working on something in that vein. Thrilling Passages, while not "traditional fantasy," will use the same model for mechanics construction, i.e., stripping out the complexity and detail from d20 where it's unneeded or where it conflicts with the spirit of the game. It would not shock me if others followed suit as well, as part of "growing the pie." Our reasoning was along the same lines as Blue Rose as well: we wanted to simplify the mechanic to make entry easier (in our case for the younger crowd). We're not taking the exact same tack as BR as far as specific mechanics, but the concept's the same.

 

[Incenjucar]

What, exactly, is meant by "romance"?

Appearantly, it means "Princess Barbera" "Martin Tenbones", from the second Sandman compilation.

More seriously, its one of those words that has several, barely-related meanings.

Properly, it means more or less, "Of Rome". Later, Romance came to mean "idealized" (Which includes both the increasingly perfect women of Arthurian legend, each one more absolutely perfect than the last, and the dark idealizations of E. A. Poe, who romanticized about his ladies AFTER their deaths.). Of late, its usually people and situations who are idealized, but one can also Romanticize, say, the Middle Ages, by thinking it was like Camelot rather than a festering cesspool of plague and violence. Of late, "Romance" mostly means "love and dating in a way women have a hard time getting it at the moment", which changes based on the current social fads. If women only have burly, pushy men, the latest romance will have sensative artists who woo them with tears. If women have only sensative artists, they'll be curling up with a story about lumberjacks. If women are having overly-demanding partners, the stories may involve getting to date around, if they have partners who date around, the stories may involve absolute, unquestioning loyalty. If partners are getting too physical, it'll be emotional, if partners are getting to emotional, it'll get physical. It's basically "relationship-oriented wish fulfillment" fiction. Add fantasy, and its the same, plus Martin Tenbones.

From what I've seen lately, the single mother thing is getting out of hand, because there's a bloody dozen pregnancy and baby related romance novels. Stable boys are also quite prominent, which is probably a result of urbanization.

There is, of course, romance of a less faddish nature, it's just not as common.

Personally, I'm writing in some romantic notions in the background of my latest (er.. first... eh heh..) story. It's not going to be a major part of things, but it's an effective way of noting the tension that exists in one of my fantasy cultures.

I've also used a seriously long, convoluted romantic situation in my online RPing. Aside from culminating in my character's death, and being amazingly, creepily accurate (When I had first started playing the character, who was nigh-unkillable, he said to some, on the issue of love, "Love is the only thing that can kill me.") Finding a 'part' of his former love (from another lifetime, in another body) in a woman who wanted his bod, he ended up thinking he was in love with her, being torn apart every once in awhile by her infidelity. When they finally get together, she quickly does something idiotic. The character thus goes haywire (long story), and ends up in the arms of a dear friend -- they realize the real love was between the two of them, all that time, and he died in her arms. (And the best part, he came from a culture that expressed emotion through song -- her character's thoughts as he died was that she never got to hear him sing).

Romance is bloody fun. Especially tragic romance.

 

[The Grackle]

More seriously, its one of those words that has several, barely-related meanings.

Properly, it means more or less, "Of Rome". Later, Romance came to mean "idealized" (Which includes both the increasingly perfect women of Arthurian legend, each one more absolutely perfect than the last, and the dark idealizations of E. A. Poe, who romanticized about his ladies AFTER their deaths.). Of late, its usually people and situations who are idealized, but one can also Romanticize, say, the Middle Ages, by thinking it was like Camelot rather than a festering cesspool of plague and violence. Of late, "Romance" mostly means "love and dating in a way women have a hard time getting it at the moment", which changes based on the current social fads. If women only have burly, pushy men, the latest romance will have sensative artists who woo them with tears. If women have only sensative artists, they'll be curling up with a story about lumberjacks. If women are having overly-demanding partners, the stories may involve getting to date around, if they have partners who date around, the stories may involve absolute, unquestioning loyalty. If partners are getting too physical, it'll be emotional, if partners are getting to emotional, it'll get physical. It's basically "relationship-oriented wish fulfillment" fiction. Add fantasy, and its the same, plus Martin Tenbones.

see. "for girls"



Seriously, though. I'm not dissing it. I think it's a pretty cool concept and I'm a big fan of anything that tries to stretch peoples ideas of what an RPG can be. But there's no way I can role-play a "romance" game with my guy friends. Maybe in an online game where I don't have to see big-headed dudes sitting across from the table from me drinking red bulls. Maybe.

I'm obviously not the target market here. If I buy it, it will be for the crunch.

 

[Ranger REG]

I'd buy for the crunch, too. Also like hanging around in the produce section of the supermarket, it would be a nice way to meet girls ... at least stop short of joining an Oprah Book Club meeting.