Blue Rose RPG
Well, Kit's going on about Blue Rose and wanting to start up a game on Discord. So, I took a whack at character creation. Honestly? It turned out to be one of the most disappointing and depressing experiences in a while.
Start with a character concept. Okay, that makes sense, but that's either really easy or really hard for me these days. In some games, I can get away with making a character mechanically and seeing how things fall personality-wise. When a game has some focus on goals, bonds, motivations, and relationships from the outset, though, that's not really an option. No solid idea burst forth for me (true more often than not, but it occasionally happens), so I decided I'd at least try going through the mechanics to see if anything gelled further.
That process, I found disappointing. The game rules strike me as an odd combination of newer sensibilities (with baked-into-creation goals and such) and ones more befitting an RPG from the 80's (elements dependent on rolls and charts). You are directed to start with a concept, roll attributes, choose a race, roll racial bonuses, choose a background, pick one of a short list of background bonuses, choose a class, and pick a couple class talents from a short list.
I went in with the thought of making an adept (ie. mage) who can fight with magic. Well, out the gate that's difficult since about 80% of the available arcana (spell effects) are very much utility-based. The remainder are either evil and corrupting or risk debilitating fatigue. I suppose it's theoretically possible to create a combat adept - probably with fire shaping and high bonuses to fatigue resistance, though even then the damage output isn't much different from hitting someone with a big weapon. Hmm.
That sort of reminds me of the monk thing in D&D: "Hey, this class can be awesome! ... But really only if they have several excellent stats."
So, when I rolled some below-average stat sets, it became clear that any "excels in" clause I might have had in mind for a concept were out thanks to dice. But... one can work with that. Then I rolled racial abilities that had nothing to do with the basic idea in mind either. Okay, that's not helpful, but... whatever. With background, I could at least pick up one maybe-kinda-could-be-useful-eventually bonus... or I could take a different background for a bonus that would be actually useful, but it would conflict with the concept I had. Hmm. Then class!
Adepts are... Well, I've already mentioned that most arcana are utility-focused. If you try, you can get one arcana talent from race and two from adept initially. The way those starting talents work out, you get one default arcana per talent, and then you get two basic ones automatically no matter what talent you choose. For any additional talents, those two basic arcana can be swapped out for one of the talent's area. So... three starting talents: 2 default/standard arcana (mental defense and sensing), 1 basic arcana from the talent, 2 of choice from talents. Sort of two and half spells of choice. Want to shape fire and ice? Nope, just one. That feels really limiting. Again, it's workable, and you can expand as you level up, but it's pretty lackluster-feeling. A non-vata adept would even have one less.
At level 4, classes get to pick a specialization - sort of an advanced class. I, curiously, didn't see any explanation for what happens if you don't qualify for any, which could theoretically happen. Maybe I missed something, but bouncing through that section skipping over the open-to-all, it looks like there are 8 warrior-only specs and 6 for experts. Adepts? I counted two. In fairness, a couple of the "any" specs are focused on arcana use, so they sort of lend themselves to being used by adepts, but they're not adept-only. This isn't exactly a huge game flaw, but it sort of adds to a pervading sense of the game catering more to non-adepts.
Mechanically, I went around and sort of settled on an idea that seems at least a little bit neat: an adept who can summon a psychic weapon and enhance it so it can harm spirity things it normally couldn't. That's combat-mage-ish, right? Arcane Weapon doesn't inflict fatigue. Psychic Weapon can. With those stats I rolled, summoning the weapon runs about a 50% chance of inflicting fatigue. So... starting a fight with 50/50 odds of being at -1 to actions. And no spectacular stats toward actually using the weapon. That's... not great. In fact, if that's how I want to fight, I'd be better off making a warrior, who would get the benefits of armor, health, and probably a couple more bonuses-of-choice that would apply to weapon use. The only advantage is being able to harm magical beasties.
So, yeah, where I ended that process was disappointing. Doable, but disappointing.
Then that comes back around to defining the more mental/emotional character aspects, and... that's where things really fall apart to me. I can't really blame the game system for this one - it's all on me. But I have always struggled with building inter-connected characters for an RPG like this. Even in the same room as other people, I'm bad about opening up and collaborating, and in this case, it sounds like some people have already done that with their characters, having worked out entwined backgrounds, and I've left myself on the outside. A lot of that's just me - my own emotions/psyche. Some of it is simply because the character doesn't exist solidly enough in my mind for me to say things definitively about how they feel yet.
And that's where I came to a screeching halt last night, ending on a down note to toss and turn rather than sleeping soundly. Nothing about the process of creating a Blue Rose character has done anything to inspire me. That makes me think I may just sit that game out entirely.
Start with a character concept. Okay, that makes sense, but that's either really easy or really hard for me these days. In some games, I can get away with making a character mechanically and seeing how things fall personality-wise. When a game has some focus on goals, bonds, motivations, and relationships from the outset, though, that's not really an option. No solid idea burst forth for me (true more often than not, but it occasionally happens), so I decided I'd at least try going through the mechanics to see if anything gelled further.
That process, I found disappointing. The game rules strike me as an odd combination of newer sensibilities (with baked-into-creation goals and such) and ones more befitting an RPG from the 80's (elements dependent on rolls and charts). You are directed to start with a concept, roll attributes, choose a race, roll racial bonuses, choose a background, pick one of a short list of background bonuses, choose a class, and pick a couple class talents from a short list.
I went in with the thought of making an adept (ie. mage) who can fight with magic. Well, out the gate that's difficult since about 80% of the available arcana (spell effects) are very much utility-based. The remainder are either evil and corrupting or risk debilitating fatigue. I suppose it's theoretically possible to create a combat adept - probably with fire shaping and high bonuses to fatigue resistance, though even then the damage output isn't much different from hitting someone with a big weapon. Hmm.
That sort of reminds me of the monk thing in D&D: "Hey, this class can be awesome! ... But really only if they have several excellent stats."
So, when I rolled some below-average stat sets, it became clear that any "excels in" clause I might have had in mind for a concept were out thanks to dice. But... one can work with that. Then I rolled racial abilities that had nothing to do with the basic idea in mind either. Okay, that's not helpful, but... whatever. With background, I could at least pick up one maybe-kinda-could-be-useful-eventually bonus... or I could take a different background for a bonus that would be actually useful, but it would conflict with the concept I had. Hmm. Then class!
Adepts are... Well, I've already mentioned that most arcana are utility-focused. If you try, you can get one arcana talent from race and two from adept initially. The way those starting talents work out, you get one default arcana per talent, and then you get two basic ones automatically no matter what talent you choose. For any additional talents, those two basic arcana can be swapped out for one of the talent's area. So... three starting talents: 2 default/standard arcana (mental defense and sensing), 1 basic arcana from the talent, 2 of choice from talents. Sort of two and half spells of choice. Want to shape fire and ice? Nope, just one. That feels really limiting. Again, it's workable, and you can expand as you level up, but it's pretty lackluster-feeling. A non-vata adept would even have one less.
At level 4, classes get to pick a specialization - sort of an advanced class. I, curiously, didn't see any explanation for what happens if you don't qualify for any, which could theoretically happen. Maybe I missed something, but bouncing through that section skipping over the open-to-all, it looks like there are 8 warrior-only specs and 6 for experts. Adepts? I counted two. In fairness, a couple of the "any" specs are focused on arcana use, so they sort of lend themselves to being used by adepts, but they're not adept-only. This isn't exactly a huge game flaw, but it sort of adds to a pervading sense of the game catering more to non-adepts.
Mechanically, I went around and sort of settled on an idea that seems at least a little bit neat: an adept who can summon a psychic weapon and enhance it so it can harm spirity things it normally couldn't. That's combat-mage-ish, right? Arcane Weapon doesn't inflict fatigue. Psychic Weapon can. With those stats I rolled, summoning the weapon runs about a 50% chance of inflicting fatigue. So... starting a fight with 50/50 odds of being at -1 to actions. And no spectacular stats toward actually using the weapon. That's... not great. In fact, if that's how I want to fight, I'd be better off making a warrior, who would get the benefits of armor, health, and probably a couple more bonuses-of-choice that would apply to weapon use. The only advantage is being able to harm magical beasties.
So, yeah, where I ended that process was disappointing. Doable, but disappointing.
Then that comes back around to defining the more mental/emotional character aspects, and... that's where things really fall apart to me. I can't really blame the game system for this one - it's all on me. But I have always struggled with building inter-connected characters for an RPG like this. Even in the same room as other people, I'm bad about opening up and collaborating, and in this case, it sounds like some people have already done that with their characters, having worked out entwined backgrounds, and I've left myself on the outside. A lot of that's just me - my own emotions/psyche. Some of it is simply because the character doesn't exist solidly enough in my mind for me to say things definitively about how they feel yet.
And that's where I came to a screeching halt last night, ending on a down note to toss and turn rather than sleeping soundly. Nothing about the process of creating a Blue Rose character has done anything to inspire me. That makes me think I may just sit that game out entirely.
I hate. Hate. HATE. Games that make you choose what you want to be before you roll anything. Yeah, yeah, "But old school D&D did that!" yeah, and there's a reason it was house ruled away until it became "Generate character scores first" in the official rules. You don't know what you're oging to roll. You don't know if you're going to be good at anything the class/profession needs until you've generated stats. In real life, we try to do jobs we train/went to school for/enjoy doing instead of showing up to a workplace and expecting to "get it" on the first day. Anyway, my sympathy that it was not enjoyable or inspiring for you.
ReplyDeleteMmm. Don't most games do that? Seems like concept is often first up whether you're rolling or spending points in almost any instance I can think of.
DeleteBlue Rose's default is rolling out nine stats in order, then you can exchange a pair. Thinking about that, it's pretty restrictive and can further make it difficult to be good at anything a player might have envisioned. I was operating under "roll and arrange as desired," which is more forgiving, but still not helpful if a concept involved high or low aspects.
The stats are weighted slightly in the benefit of PCs: with bonuses starting lower than the average on rolls and, if I recall, ranging from -3 to +5 rather than being even both ways.
But, while I'd be lying if I said the results there didn't bug me, I think a starting character with a range of -1 to +2 modifiers is perfectly playable. No starting character concept really should require maximum bonuses anyway.
I think I was, however, looking for something to make me feel the character I was making could be 1) useful, 2) at least a little unique, and 3) not redundant. Of those three, I think I managed fractional ratings totally between 1 and 1.5. I was also hoping to stumble across something mechanical of thematic that got me more interested and focused, but that didn't happen.
Plus the relationships thing, so... yeah. I made an effort, but didn't reach critical mass of characterness to go with.
The thing is, characters gain foci, attribute points, and talents with every level, so by the time you reach Level 4, you should *always* have what you need. I think the only way you can't reach your specialization is if you actively try to do so.
DeleteAnd Kyn, in AGE, there's no attribute requirements for any Class. Unless you're cursed by the gods of Luck, you are always going to be able to hit your desired Spec with minimal effort. It's a step ahead of 3.5 - what happens if you're aiming for a Prestige Class, but can't make the Attribute / Skill / Feat combo?
Specs: I said it was theoretically possible, but yeah, it would be very, very difficult to not qualify by level 4 as long as you know what you're going for. You'd have to change your mind after a few levels, actively sabotage yourself, or maybe start with -1 in a primary stat which would be not just a bad set of starting rolls, but remarkably abysmal.
Delete"what happens if you're aiming for a Prestige Class, but can't make the Attribute / Skill / Feat combo?"
DeleteWhy are you aiming for that prestige class? If you like it because it seems cool or you want the power it offers, then you should be building your character from the ground up aimed towards it. PC's in 3.X are designed to grant flavor, skill and powers to the myriad of base classes for those willing to sacrifice fundamental progression in that class. If I make a rogue that's going to be Thief Acrobat, then I look at what Thief-Acrobat wants as pre-reqs and build into that. You don't walk into a construction site and want to operate the crane just because you think it'd be fun to do if all you've done your whole life is write
Roll stats and then spin a d100 for class! https://68.media.tumblr.com/62f836ffc46b7ecefbfc6cf2c0e38dd8/tumblr_o2uz5k8RvP1v4krueo1_1280.jpg
ReplyDeleteI don't know, I think you were expecting maybe too much, or had your mind fixed on a few too many things all at once. Let's see if I can explain it some.
ReplyDelete"I went in with the thought of making an adept (ie. mage) who can fight with magic. Well, out the gate that's difficult since about 80% of the available arcana (spell effects) are very much utility-based. The remainder are either evil and corrupting or risk debilitating fatigue."
A part of that is the setting. Using magic to inflict harm is usually considered 'evil'. It's hard-wired right into the setting. The entire idea is that the heroes are just that - heroes. Engulfing people in fire and ripping them apart with lightning isn't considered heroic in the setting. In fact, if you look at the game, killing people in general is considered kind of a last resort.
"I suppose it's theoretically possible to create a combat adept - probably with fire shaping and high bonuses to fatigue resistance, though even then the damage output isn't much different from hitting someone with a big weapon."
Why should it be more? I think that's another thing - they designed the classes so the output is more or less the same across the board - barring specific techniques.
"Mechanically, I went around and sort of settled on an idea that seems at least a little bit neat: an adept who can summon a psychic weapon and enhance it so it can harm spirity things it normally couldn't. That's combat-mage-ish, right?"
See, I think that entire concept is kind of awesome. Sure, you could go with warrior, and hit things with swords, but why not an adept who uses psychic weapons - and over time gets better with them? That's a perfectly viable - and awesome - concept.
I think you came in with some preconceptions - you were looking at a more generic fantasy setting, instead of looking at what the game's trying to nudge people towards. It'd be like trying to figure out how to play a D&D mage in Exalted - it just isn't going to happen. Or trying to make a Solar in D&D. Why not look at what the game's asking for, and go with it?
As for the relationship thing - they did have the option for 'looking after myself' for people who don't want strong connections to other characters. It was an out if you wanted to take it.
I don't know, I have to say I'm disappointed, because you gave the game only the slimmest of chances, and it feels like you looked for every negative thing you could - that anything the game could have offered was just a disappointment, rather than seeing what it could have offered you.
:\
Damage parity: Well, I admit it has something to do with the angle I'm coming from, but I expect a slight advantage in some way for adept magic-based combat because a warrior (or expert) isn't risking debilitating himself every time he draws his weapon or swings, which an adept is with fatigue. It makes adepts demonstrably worse at combat. It could be argued utility prospects make up for that, but it doesn't sit well with me.
DeleteFrom what I read, using fire to roast people isn't corrupting (unless you're doing it in a corrupted place or with a corrupted item or something). It seems like sort of a workaround - using magic to directly affect someone (flesh shaping, mental intrusion, harm, etc.) is corrupting, but using magic to push elemental energies into someone isn't because it's indirect. Psychic weapon seemed to operate on that principle as well. Really, it strikes me as very similar to takes on the Force and the dark side.
And yes, I have stated and freely admit I may have come at things from the wrong angle with expectations that didn't match. I have a lot of quibbles around the mechanics of the game and feel like adepts may be functionally short-changed. But those things are not why I passed on playing the game this time around.
My passing on the game has more to do with not coming up with a character (beyond mechanics) that appealed to me, not finding anything in the setting that really grabbed my interest, and feeling left out of party-building. Probably a majority of that is my own fault, not the game's. But, y'know, sometimes that just happens.