I was highly amused watching an epic thread on the big purple regarding this game's setting convention about men having to ride side-saddle.
The amusement was mainly from the rank denial coming from both sides: the anti-sidesaddle side were trying to clothe their arguments around issues of realism, when let's face it, EVERY SINGLE ONE of those protesting were actually bothered by the idea of a game where male PCs were forced to be second-class citizens for the sake of pretentious asswipe game-designers.
Likewise, the defenders of this were trying to argue how the game made sense, when really they don't give a fuck about sense, and EVERY SINGLE ONE of them (including Reign's game designer) are simply engaging on getting their politically-correct rocks off at the idea of how "sophisticated" a game where male characters are at a disadvantage would be. Its all about pretentious bullshit, and the dislike of it is a dislike of this pretentious bullshit, only no one on the thread had the balls to say as much (possibly for good reason, out of fear of being banned).
RPGPundit
1/ Side-saddles for men doesn't make sense.
2/ Who fucking cares, honestly?
But yeah. That's the point, isn't it? That these guys are actually bothered enough to have a FORTY-PAGE debate about this shit right? Right. You've got a point.
I'm going to make a game where men are required to wear crotch-length miniskirts and lipstick. Gender paradigms, brilliantly subverted! I'll be an indie game hero!
Yeah sounds like the designer is indulging in some gender reversal activities.
It makes Blue Rose sound worth playing...
I...think they stepped over the too weird line from what I've heard for some people. Some things are just too ingrained into some peoples perceptions of how the world works. However, I'll be honest, the system sold me off Reign a LONG time ago--despite thinking the company rules might have been nice for Birthright game.
Meh, at first glance it seems to pass the "it something they could get away with it in a Star Trek episode" test. And in the end, that's about as much sense any roleplaying game setting needs to make.
Of course Kirk would ignore the rule and sleep with the queen before the episode was over.
Pundy, you claim that you don't need RPG.net anymore, you've never read Reign and you plainly would never play it...why do you even bother?
!i!
I always thought the presented setting (which fortunately isn't hardwired into the rules too deeply) was the weakest aspect of REIGN.
Actually, why pussyfoot around? I couldn't fucking stand the default setting. REIGN would be a nigh-perfect product without it; instead it's a genius system (for my tastes) with an idiotic setting idea as a "bonus".
Quote from: Ian Absentia;321246Pundy, you claim that you don't need RPG.net anymore, you've never read Reign and you plainly would never play it...why do you even bother?
!i!
Page hits.
Quote from: Warthur;321247Actually, why pussyfoot around? I couldn't fucking stand the default setting. REIGN would be a nigh-perfect product without it; instead it's a genius system (for my tastes) with an idiotic setting idea as a "bonus".
I've been able to wrap my head around some of the goofier aspects of the setting, but you've otherwise summed my feelings up nicely. Every time I've turned to
Reign in the two years that I've owned it, it's always been for the system and
never for the setting. This is also why I've been luke warm to cool on Stolze's "ransom" marketing for his supplements -- the supplemental material is virtually all setting, with only scattered mechanics.
Quote from: Halfjack;321248Page hits.
Too fucking true.
!i!
The Reign setting is OTT for the sake of it, and I find that infinitely more annoying than the side-saddle thing taken in isolation. The last refuge of a not-very-imaginative setting designer is "turn all the knobs to 11!" and that's what Reign's setting is.
I find the Stolze cult at rpg.net unfathomable, I have to say.
Quote from: Ian Absentia;321246Pundy, you claim that you don't need RPG.net anymore, you've never read Reign and you plainly would never play it...why do you even bother?
!i!
I don't know that I ever said that I don't "need" RPG.net; I do still look over their RPG board pretty regularly, though I rarely find more than one or two threads I actually click on any given day (compared to a dozen or more a day here; there's a much better signal to noise ratio on theRPGsite).
And this is an issue of interest to me, even if Reign as a game is not. Its more about the question of gamers and PC-sentiments/fear and how the Swine there are dominating the terms of discussion.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;321269And this is an issue of interest to me, even if Reign as a game is not. Its more about the question of gamers and PC-sentiments/fear and how the Swine there are dominating the terms of discussion.
And that's yesterday's news, man. It's a harp with one fucking string, too. And, I'd dare say, it isn't really pertinent to RPGs themselves.
Again, aside from looking to stir up page hits, why even bother?
!i!
I guess Pundit has to reach now that Ron and the Forge have faded away to an irrelevancy within a niche within a niche. (Seriously, have they done anything interesting, published an innovative game or even stirred up a good flamefest in the last couple of years?)
Quote from: Ian Absentia;321265I've been able to wrap my head around some of the goofier aspects of the setting, but you've otherwise summed my feelings up nicely. Every time I've turned to Reign in the two years that I've owned it, it's always been for the system and never for the setting. This is also why I've been luke warm to cool on Stolze's "ransom" marketing for his supplements -- the supplemental material is virtually all setting, with only scattered mechanics.
To be fair, Stolze has put some more meaty system bits in some of the more recent supplements.
I'm happy with the ransom model, because it's clear that there's enough fanboys that pretty much any supplement Stolze cooks up will get released without me paying a penny for it, and at the same time enough people are passionate about the system (as opposed to the setting) to convince him not to ignore it entirely.
Taken in isolation, the idea of the 'side saddle riding men' makes sense with a certain view of logic. It is the reasons behind the decision and the culture it was created in that makes it intolerable nonsense.
The 'Star Trek Logic' comment from above is apt: creating a setting where certain 'normal' conventions are reversed is a tried and true fiction technique. Doing so with a particular agenda, and with a certain smug satisfaction at having tweaked people's nipples, or even having 'proven' some sort of political point is, to be frank, assanine and juvenile.
The idea of men riding side saddle to protect 'the boys' is no more absurd than women having to do the same to protect their virtues. Or, rather, less so. Its silly either way.
Not having read Reign, and only dimly remembering the rest, I must veture on a limb to point out that this single alteration of setting 'givens' does not, and would not, render men 'impotent' on the battlefield, and the simple biological metric that males are the more expendable gender in reproductive math would require far more than a simple idiot idea (ride side saddle to protect 'the boys') to overturn. Rather than put women on the front lines of war any number of other solutions present themselves: Cavalrymen are made up of older, established 'gentlemen', cavalry are Jannisary style eunuchs... cavalry fight side saddle and damn the poor leverage!, Use Chariots Moar. Whatever.
Interestingly enough I've read through Reign and don't ever remember stumbling across that side saddle crap. Who knew, all this time I've been playing the game wrong. Rant = Ridiculous.