The FATAL And Friends review convinced me maybe I haven't

Maybe try asking this question a decade ago.

>>52016242
The 2nd edition came out like a month ago, I've assumed a wave of renewed interest of some kind.

It's your standard RPG heartbreaker.

Pretty to look at. Moistens the nethers of a vocal minority of choice. Setting is woefully inept and poorly put together (Although the new edition takes more care to soften it's ideologies the the d20 edition) System itself is nothing special and offers nothing that stands out above any other prevailing system on the market, leaving it's only selling points to be the book's production value and the aforementioned setting built of strawmen.

I recommend just stealing it from the pdfshare thread and giving it a quick glance over before relegating it to the back of your harddrives like everyone else has already done.

>>52016646
>It's your standard RPG heartbreaker.
Why do we call systems like this heartbreakers? Where'd this hot meme come from? Didn't see it for years and years, and suddenly it was a thing. What's up with this one?

>>52016687
It existed for a fair while. Back when I first saw it it was being used specifically to refer to very low budget, implicitly one-man projects: the prototypical "young nerd plays D&D and figures out he could do BETTER!" RPG that never sells a dozen copies.

http://projects.inklesspen.com/fatal-and-friends/kai-tave/blue-rose/

I'll give him that: it's one of the better in depth RPG reviews I've ever read. Usually, if they aren't technical and emotionless, reviews tend to be either completely mocking/deriding or adoring. This one really shows that a person can not like something but still MAKE A GENUINE, VERY SERIOUS EFFORT TO ANALYZE IT OBJECTIVELY, IN DEPTH, ON ITS OWN MERITS. It's a commendable approach you almost never see on /tg/, and the result is actually pretty thought provoking. Like, you may decide it's not the game for you but it's a far cry from your usual fa/tg/uys "faggot ass retarded game designers made a shit stupid game, everything about it is shit stupid" tier reviews.

>>52016218
I might once the Kickstarter version arrives.

Honestly, I wasn't played enough RPGs to give this a shot back when I found out about it.

>>52016687
>>52016886
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/9/

Most fantasy heartbreakers are either RPGs using a well-known existing system, making a few of their own modifications, but clearly never having read or played another RPG... or RPGs were are just a mash-up of two existing systems. They're named "fantasy heartbreakers", or heartbreakers in general, because they typically involve the designer of such a system spending an enormous amount of their time and money creating it and putting it into publication, only for the vast majority of people to completely ignore it - because there are simply other RPGs out there which do exactly what the designer is trying to do. The designer just didn't realize they even existed.

>>52016961
It's really more of counter review. It makes a big point of addressing some of the most common complaints about the game in order to show that if you actually read the book, they're baseless. It's not silly, but the problem is that it's also very useless. A product only gets to make one first impression. If it has the bad luck to make it awful, justly or not doesn't matter. Blue Rose simply originally came out in the wrong sociopolitical climate and it resulted in initial opinions of it being so low before anyone even bothered to open the book, that by the time they could nobody even wanted to.

I mean, if this thing originally came out nowadays, maybe Powered by the Apocalypse, marketed directly at the kind of people it was clearly always aimed at (but which, back when it first came out, had almost zero overlap with the tabletop gaming community)? That shit could've been big.

>>52017099
Everybody thinks they can "do" D&D better than any version of D&D does.
Which isn't that hard, objectively speaking, since many versions of D&D are ridiculous.
It's just getting anyone besides [you] to play MAH SYSTEM is inevitably a fruitless endevour, even if your Magnum Opus is actually good.

>>52017329
>marketed directly at the kind of people it was clearly always aimed at
This is a point people often miss, possibly because, as you've said, they don't read the book. Blue Rose isn't some kind of subtle, secret propaganda. It's not some attempt at "sneaking" leftist agenda into your group in the guise of a game. It's very, very, very explicit about its themes, agenda, and who its aimed at. It takes pride in it, for better or worse. I totally agree that it could've succeeded had it come out a decade later. Being ahead of your time isn't always good for business.

>>52017406
Yeah, saying "This is a leftist-feminist-liberal fantasy game and if you don't like it, don't play it" would've worked better if there had been anyone in the market into leftist-feminist-liberal fantasy games. As it was, nobody played it.

>>52017332
>It's just getting anyone besides [you] to play MAH SYSTEM is inevitably a fruitless endevour, even if your Magnum Opus is actually good.
This is half the reason I'm not interested in putting in a ton of effort for a D&D revision. It would see play with perhaps one or two groups, and that's it. Nobody wants to be forced to read a 300+ page notebook for homework in order to attend a game. And really, that's what would be required to get most D&D games up and running to the point where I would prefer.

Really, it is more practical to just use the rules as they are (faults and all) or to find another system. Nobody really wants another "D&D but with better ruleset" system.

I could get away with a new system if it was significantly different or did something else, though.