Ok, everybody roll for Pride and Prejudice

>>50129335
I imagine the game would be very, very, very boring.

>>50129493
Have you read a Jane Austen novel? I'm a dude and I didn't read one nearly early enough - I think in my late teens was when I read Pride and Prejudice for the first time.

What surprised me was 1) Jane Austen isn't a superbly amazing writer in terms of pure prose 2) Austen's books are pretty fucking entertaining. The verbal sniping and parodical characters make almost all of her books a pleasant read - it does tend to be dependent on how goody two-shoes the protagonists are, so e.g. Persuasion I just want the villains to win and overthrow the protagonist's prospects but Emma, Emma is my legit waifu.

I don't know what Jane Austen's magical realm would be other than a savage critique of British upper/middle class society, but I'd probably enjoy having her as a GM.

How many thousands of £ a year each player has in income would be a critical stat.

File: laughing cum dumpsters.jpg (106KB, 507x338px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 507x338px

>>50129563
Jane Austen is an utter trash author.

It's painfully obvious that you're a teenager.

>>50131240
But I'm not, anon. Sorry I couldn't rep Mishima or Klima for you :^)

>>50129335
Would she play Silk in the Glen?

>>50131435
Well meme'd my friend.

She'd probably make her own homebrew of Faith+Honor with a focus on playing romantic subplots. Romantic combat as a subset of social combat?

>>50131240
>Shit author
>Has not been out of print for 200 years

Pick one.

File: mary_shelley_image.jpg (14KB, 554x312px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 554x312px

>>50129335
Step aside bitch, amateur hour is over. You want intrigue? I got you covered? You want playable monster races BOOM homebrew out the wazzoo. Ad lib so hard you'd swear I spent weeks prepping this shit.
Need a DM with edge?! My family members killed themselves as a fashion statement. I am like the bastard child of Martha Stewart and those filthy notes James Joyce wrote to married women.
Magical Realm? Nigger you've been in it the whole time!

>>50133447
>never actually turns up for a session because she and her husband are off their faces on opium and/or at one of their children's funerals

File: prideprejudice.jpg (197KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 1280x720px

Best Darcy coming through

File: James-Joyce-book-of-the-w-007.jpg (25KB, 460x276px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 460x276px

Can we play FATAL?

I swear I had a pdf of rules for a Jane Austen rpg, but I can't find it and all google finds is online stuff.
Does anyone know what game I'm thinking of?

>>50133462
>Shelly are you sure you can host tonight. don't you have children. Shelly where are your children, what happened to your children Shelly?

>>50133476
Also best Elizabeth offcourse, Kiera Knightley get lost

File: terry-pratchett.jpg (399KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

399KB, 2048x1536px

>That was a great campaign guys. I promise we'll play again soon.

File: 9781594743344.jpg (33KB, 372x400px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 372x400px

>>50129335
Hey cool, I already rolled up a character, I used a splatbook, hope that's ok.

>>50129335
Actual gameplay footage:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDPTC-yAmgo

>>50131240
>Jane Austen
>Bad

No anon, you are the teenagers.

>>50133720
Mark Twain thought Austen was the worst thing in the world.

He literally called for her execution.

>>50135897

>“I have to stop every time I begin. Everytime I read “Pride and Prejudice” I want to dig her up and beat her over the skull with her own shin-bone.”
>Mark Twaine, letter to Josepht Twichell, 1898

Twaine was the most based author ever. Not 'in his time', not 'as of yet', ever. As in for all eternity.

I would dearly love to see Austen trying to run a light-romance adventure campaign with Twaine as the That Guy, while the whole rest of the group rolls their eyes and go "just fuck already!"

File: 13 Clocks.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>50129335
> Would Jane Austen make a good GM?
No.

Better question - would James Thurber make a good GM?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmryyAsh3HE

>>50133280
Being in print = good?

Twilight is now a masterpiece.

>>50133630
Aw yes the infamous homebrew that's gone borderline mainstream

>>50138303
No, idiot. An author that has a book printed might not necessarily be memorable. An author whose work is printed continuously for 200 might have someone that people over many shifting generations find appealing.

Now, you may have some obvious responsen to that? Let me help you out;
>Herp derp Mein Kampf sold a lot so Hitler must be great author
No, political tracts are not actually considered literary fiction. Which is what Austen wrote.
>bub bub, the bibleas also been in print for longer!
Also not fiction

>>50141336
It just means that enough people's desire for Twilight or Twilight equivalent remains constant.

>>50141336
>Jane Austen
>memorable
Name at least a couple of memorable quotes or scenes or whatever. Go on, I'll wait.

Meanwhile, I'll be here, with Oscar Wilde and Shakespeare and Lewis Carroll and all the other actually memorable authors.
>>50141376 is right, yknow.

>>50129335
Jane Austen would spend an entire session describing the garden scene where one PC and an NPC do barely anything and then one paints a picture of the other. All the PCs would really get to do is spout bland attempts at clever dialogue about a fundamentally broken caste system.

This is her magical realm, and you will not be leaving it.

>>50141336
>Bible
>Not fiction
u wot

>>50143562
It's a religious text.

File: hark-a-vagrant.jpg (128KB, 794x328px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 794x328px

Emily Brontë would kick ass as a GM. Wuthering Heights is basically the BBEG winning the campaign and ruining everything for everyone.

File: The Vagina Ass of Lucifer Niggerbastard - By Shawn Wunjo.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>50129563

Here is something of equal quality but more compelling story.

File: BodiceRippertheRPG.png (564KB, 1349x1797px) Image search: [Google]

564KB, 1349x1797px

>>50129335

>>50133512
>I swear I had a pdf of rules for a Jane Austen rpg, but I can't find it and all google finds is online stuff.
I have it, but you'll have to wait 10 hours before I can post it.

>>50129563
>Have you read a Jane Austen novel? I'm a dude and I didn't read one nearly early enough - I think in my late teens was when I read Pride and Prejudice for the first time.

I tried reading that shit once. I couldn't stop falling asleep.

>>50143603

It's a historical text as well.

>>50129335
Has someone made a Lasers + Feelings version of this yet?

>If you are using Pride (doing something independent, daring, low-brow, or reckless) you want to roll UNDER your number.

>If you are using Prejudice (doing something careful, high class, or traditional) you want to roll OVER your number.

>If you roll your number exactly, you are a MR. DARCY.

>If you roll exactly your number, you are a Mr. Darcy

>>50143491
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a single man in possession of good fortune must be in want of a wife" is one of the most known quoted openings to a novel ever written in english.

Scenes that stick out in my mind are the one from P&P where every member of Lizzie's family systematically embarrasses themselves at a party without realising it themselves, but she's conscious of Darcy watching and judging the whole thing. Or the bit from Emma where the heroine insults a poor unmarried relation on a picnic and gets scolded by Mister Knightley for being rude, leading her to start to realise that she's in love with him.

>>50144669
Prejudice is being careful and classy? You're really stretching there. Sense and Sensibility would fit your conceit much better.

>>50144930
it's hardly a stretch to say that Prejudice is a preference for familiar ways over new, for the tried-and-true over the unexplored, for the refined over the fresh

And Michael Moorcock wrote an essay slating Tolkien, because new kids trying to make a name for themselves by attacking the established names in their field is as old as the hills. A discerning reader will be able to appreciate all of them for what they are.

>>50136116
>Everytime I read “Pride and Prejudice” I want to dig her up and beat her over the skull with her own shin-bone.
What kind of idiot does something they don't like more than once

>>50145034
a high-schooler with a book report due, I'm guessing

File: Students+vs+Prisoners.png (480KB, 864x1296px) Image search: [Google]

480KB, 864x1296px

>>50145034
>>50145053

A slave.

>>50143603
It's still fiction though. To non believers and most sane believers, anyway.

>>50145441

>It's still fiction though.

Are historical works fiction in your mind? It's obviously not made up from whole cloth like a typical novel.

>>50145471
And there are plenty of fictions set during WWII, in which numerous real life events are refered to. Doesn't make the story any more real.
I mean, yeah, the Bible is probably grounded in history, but it's so old and the text has been so heavily modified over time it's impossible to know what is true and what is not.

>>50145530
>And there are plenty of fictions set during WWII, in which numerous real life events are refered to. Doesn't make the story any more real.

Suppose my gramps described to me what happened to him during WWII. Would that be 'fiction' to you?

>I mean, yeah, the Bible is probably grounded in history, but it's so old and the text has been so heavily modified over time it's impossible to know what is true and what is not.

That the Bible is grounded in history is beyond dispute. That it has been "heavily modified over time" requires some sourcing beyond bald assertion.

>>50145630
>Suppose my gramps described to me what happened to him during WWII. Would that be 'fiction' to you?
I mean, trolling Christfags is easymode, but allow me:

Listening to a first-hand story being told by your gramps about events he witnessed is not the same as listening to a story that's been passed around from person to person for the last 5,000 years.

>>50146200
>Listening to a first-hand story being told by your gramps about events he witnessed is not the same as listening to a story that's been passed around from person to person for the last 5,000 years.

It's still not 'fiction', as the other guy appears to claim. A story of unknown accuracy, subject to secondary sources for verification, sure. A story with considerable corruption added with the passage of time, sure. A story that's patently false - if you disbelieve the claims, sure.

Fiction, no.

Definitions on the wiki:
>Fiction is the classification for any story created in the imagination, rather than based strictly on history or fact.
>Nonfiction or non-fiction is content (often, in the form of a story) whose creator, in good faith, assumes responsibility for the truth or accuracy of the events, people, and/or information presented. A work whose creator dishonestly claims this same responsibility is a fraud; a story whose creator explicitly leaves open if and how the work refers to reality is usually classified as fiction.

I'm not sure how anyone remotely familiar with the Bible could mistake it for the former, where it clearly is the latter.

Furthermore, it's not been "passed around from person to person" for 5000 years. It is a textual work, and only its earliest parts in the Old Testament are based on oral transmission. The Hebrews did have written language, you know, and so did the early Christians.

>>50144888
Sweet Jesus that sounds unbearably dull and tedious.