Post originally by Zapp at 2005-06-20 01:01:42
Converted from Phorums BB System
I don't particularly care for your bashing of the entire genre you review. Rpg.net reviews seldom are this insulting, considering that the people who reads your review are likely people who like the genre, not the ones who hate it...
You should have reviewed "True20" instead (Green Ronins setting-free pdf rulebook that presents the system used in Blue Rose), and you wouldn't have come across as such a troll.
As it is now, your opinions on the actual rules (which I assume was your main drive for writing the review) will probably drown in all the yabbering.
Post originally by Joe Grendel at 2005-06-20 01:22:05
Converted from Phorums BB System
Why does men wearing "dresses" belong in part of a rant about the acceptance of homosexuality in Aldis? Clothes don't make one a homosexual or not.
Tell a Scot they're gay because they wear kilts, and you'll likely be spitting teeth, depending on the bar. Most transvestites, who actually are wearing women's clothing (as opposed to a male garment that looks like another culture's women's clothing) are heterosexuals.
If the problem is that their culture is Other, fine, but say that. Men wearing dresses in Aldis, other than it apparently making some readers uncomfortable (Blue Rose isn't a LARP, for the record), doesn't belong in the discussion of "Aldis is accepting of homosexuality," whether that then leads to "get the torches and pitchforks" or "let's start looking for a two-bedroom walk-up there."
RE: You can tell homosexuals by the way they dress
Post originally by Spike at 2005-06-20 02:10:52
Converted from Phorums BB System
We don't call our kilts dresses, lad. We call them kilts. I for one have never once looked at a game that suggested that men wear dress like garments appropriate to the culture (usually called kilts) and thought how gay it was. I made an exception to Blue Rose due to it's excessive 'pimping' of alternative lifestyles.
Likewise, I've never been heard to say a word about Jesuit's wearing dresses, because they don't. However, some people insist on calling their garments dresses.
Dress, as a word, denotes a specific style of garment, and is one of the few, very very few types of garments that are gender specific in our culture. Bemoan the unfairness that all such garments are meant for women all you like.
As for the sexual orientation of the typical transvestite, I honestly hadn't considered that. I can't say that I know enough transvestites to even consider asking which way they swing. I merely added the dresses comment as 'one more bit' in the overwhelming amount of evidence.
To end, even if every bit of gay, or potentially gay reference was removed from this book, the setting would still be a steaming pile of childish crap, and the rules would still be solid, and the production value of the book would still be good. I just felt I would be cowardly to not point out just how much gay there was in this book to avoid a little backlash.
Post originally by Spike at 2005-06-20 02:19:11
Converted from Phorums BB System
I didn't know there was a true20 book, or else I might have.
As for bashing the Genre... I don't recall actually doing that. I've read some Diane Duane, it's been 16 years or so, but I honestly enjoyed Door into Fire. I haven't read any other cited authors, but I read Melanie Rawn, for example, a social setting female author of fantasy, which puts here into the same general style. I could name every female fantasy author I've read, given time to remember them all, and it wouldn't change my opinion of THIS book.
On the other hand, I could make an effort to be less insulting in future reviews. I suppose that a less descriptive 'this setting is crap' might have been in order, and drawn less attention away from the good stuff.
Post originally by Dan Davenport at 2005-06-20 05:12:01
Converted from Phorums BB System
I actually liked the review.
The reviewer covered the book fairly comprehensively, and while he obviously didn't care much for the setting, he also made it clear <u>why</u> that was the case. As such, I was able to get a good idea of what the game is all about and whether the reviewer's opinions are likely to be my own.
Post originally by Darrin at 2005-06-20 07:49:47
Converted from Phorums BB System
I'm with Dan on this one. I enjoyed the review quite a bit (sarcastic disdain wrapped around a healthy dose of good information), but my "cringe-o-meter" was beeping like R2-D2 getting a steady stream of lightning-bolt enemas as I envisioned what sort of flames the author was going to get baked with in the comments.
So, certainly, Mr. Lewis could have been more... uh, diplomatic with his criticisms, but I think they're valid criticisms.
I'm particularly troubled by the economic implications of a merit of fiat-based aristocracy. I've also got Michael Palin shouting in my head, "If I went 'round calling myself Emperor just because some flea-bitten hart threw a Wand of Detect Alignment at me, they'd put me away!"
The homosexuality thing has already been beaten to death in other Blue Rose reviews, and even a few folks in the pro camp were turned off by the cutesy pervasiveness of it. I can understand wanting to include it as part of the genre (and I'm glad it's there), but if the authors go out of their way to browbeat me over the head for not agreeing about how acceptable and good it should be to not only include but make it a cornerstone of the game... um, yeah, just put your magazine on the doorstep but skip the huge flaming rainbow triangle on my lawn, guys.
Lack of standing armies, dolphins as PCs, sentient speaking animals all over the place... (Are all civilized people exclusively vegetarians? Is making leather armor or upholstering a chair a capital offence? If the nomads don't farm and can't use animal skins, what do they hunt and how do they keep warm?) I can understand wanting to include these things as important aspects of the genre, but... well, ok, I can handwave with the best of them but basic economics is a big pet peeve of mine when it comes to setting.
Yes, reviewing the True20 system as separate might have been better, since that's what Mr. Lewis seems to be happiest about in the book, but I too was confused about referring to the system as True20, as I'd never heard of this term before looking at events for Origins. Does the book ever refer to the system as True20? It sounds like it doesn't... in fact, it sounds more like the book was written a couple years ago, and the authors/designers/publisher decided afterwards the system was innovative enough to unbolt it from the setting and use the rules for other genres. But I'm unaware of any other games or products trying to use True20 (other than the PDF Zapp mentioned), so failing to separate it from it's only official setting is probably excusable.
Post originally by AE Troubio at 2005-06-20 07:54:34
Converted from Phorums BB System
As I recall, this is the version of D20 that was first used in Mutants and Masterminds. Was this a purchase of your own or a review copy that you were sent?
On an unrelated note, I personally think having a setting for 13 year old girls is just fine. I prefer it to the "Math is hard...let's go shopping!" brand of gaming that WotC and other mainstream publishers are pimping to get young girls into the hobby. The Bratz CCG? Oy...
GR is currently conducting a setting search for a new setting to pair with this system for the print release: http://www.gamingreport.com/article.php?sid=17518
Linear Mode
