It's the picture one, right?

Sorry? :confused:

Quote from: KoltarAre there any pure written-for RPG setting that also have that unbridled cheerfulness optimism for Humans as good guys or better than they realize that they are?

"Cheerful optimism"...nah...but "better than they realize that they are", Tribe 8 and Mage are two that comes to mind.

Regards,
David R

QuoteOriginally Posted by Koltar
Are there any pure written-for RPG setting that also have that unbridled cheerfulness optimism for Humans as good guys or better than they realize that they are?

I've been clamoring for a totally non-ironic hardcore Soviet scifi RPG for the longest time now.

"Soviet scifi"?  Please to explain, comrade.

!i!

Quote from: Ian Absentia"Soviet scifi"?  Please to explain, comrade.

!i!

What's this, comrade? You haven't heard of Boris Arvatov? Author of "Red Star"? Co-founder of the Proletkult movement that was suppressed by The Party for being too "leftist"/"workerist"? Report to the re-education camps.

I tried to find some images to show what the gameworld of Red Star would look like, but my google fu fails me. It would look like the most far-out Soviet Constructivist architectural fantasies / exhibition design. Concept art by the Vesnin brothers, by Leonidov and Sokolov, El Lissitzky's Pressa show, Tatlin's Monument to the Third International...

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!Cyberpunk, if you play it right.

Mirrorshades aren't human, Doc.

Quote from: KoltarLets flip the question of that other thread .

 Can anyone think of RPGs or works of ffiction that are easily made into RPG situations wherein average normal folks have adventures? Or even better game settings that seeme to celebrate the possible potential of Humans and humnanity?
- Ed C.

It seems to me that these are two very different things--that is, there seem to be a fair number of games about human potential where the p.c.s are not normal people.  I don't want to get into an argument about whether Mage is pro-human or not, but its p.c.s are not average Joes or Janes.

I'm glad to see that Imperator mentioned Runequest Vikings above.  Really, the whole Runequest III Fantasy Earth setting would fit here fairly well, as default p.c.s would start out as fairly normal folks.  So would older games like Privateers and Gentlemen, Bushido, and Flashing Blades--though all of the latter could have class issues, if you want to make them issues.  Warlords of Alexander and Zenobia would fit too, I think.

Quote from: Black FlagThis is anti-humanist in the sense that humanity as a whole is assumed to be a herd of sheep who require a (possibly divinely-appointed) lord to rule over them and guide them to prosperity. It's based in turn on medieval Christianity and the concept of "divine right," following from the belief in cosmic monarchy. It's true to medieval literary sources and to right-wing reactionaries like Tolkein, but it's impossible for me to swallow unless it's being subverted somehow, which WFRP for example does admirably by obviously showing the propaganda for what it is. In fact, WFRP is a prime example of how to present a medieval setting without endorsing medieval values.

Well, fair enough.  IRL I have no love for monarchy.  But the link proposed here between humanism and democracy is pretty tenuous.  Humanism can be, and historically was, for the most part, extraordinarily elitist.  While deeply interested in individuals, humanists of the Renaissance were for the most part very dismissive of the masses.  Just think of two archetypal humanist treatises on rule--Machiavelli's Prince and Erasmus's Education of a Christian Prince.  Both are deeply monarchist and Machiavelli in particular has a very jaundiced view of ordinary people--he really does see them as sheep. Even the sort of 'civic humanism' posited by Hans Baron is really about political participation by the urban patriciate, who can have the requisite classical education--it does not imply anything approaching mass democracy.  That can more easily be found in medieval communes of the 12th century.

Also, there is nothing particularly medieval about ideas of monarchy.  The concept of divine-right monarchy is much stronger in Early Modern Europe than in medieval.  Arguably, it's also stronger in the Later Roman Empire as well.  Certainly autocratic kingship can be found in Ancient Near Eastern empires like the Assyrian, or in China for much of its history.  Really, monarchy--and the ideas of a natural social hierarchy--are very common in many cultures before the last couple of centuries.  So if you want settings without them, you are turning your back on quite a lot of possibilities.

Quote from: Black FlagIn short, the more a game takes medieval propaganda seriously, the more anti-humanist it's bound to be. Humanism was, after all, a reaction against medieval values as embodied in feudalism and contemporary Christianity.

Sorry, just can't swallow this.  Most anglophone historians now tend to the idea that there was no such thing in medieval Europe as 'feudalism'--it is an imaginary construct of the 18th century and later projected back on the medieval past.  Further, the core of Renaissance humanism wasn't a reaction against medieval values; it was the championing of the studia humanitatis, the humanities.  Like most programs of education, this was very elitist (as noted above) and entirely compatible with deep interest in Christianity (as in Erasmus).

"RED STAR" ??

 Isn't that an OGL or D20 compatible setting book ?

 We had it on the shelves at the store for awhile - but I don't remember anyone buying it.

- Ed C.

Quote from: FritzefWhile deeply interested in individuals, humanists of the Renaissance were for the most part very dismissive of the masses.  Just think of two archetypal humanist treatises on rule--Machiavelli's Prince [...] has a very jaundiced view of ordinary people--he really does see them as sheep.

If you have a look at his Discourses, which you can download in txt format here, or read online here, you'll find that he's actually very much in favour of the common person. It's simply that he says that in a state which is corrupted, it will inevitably be a principality, while a state which is uncorrupted, it'll inevitably be a republic. That is, when the people care only about wealth, and have no respect for the laws, then rule can only be by a strong individual; when the people value poverty, and respect the laws, then rule will be by the people. You see from this text that in general he favours the republican form of government, but also that he regards most of the states of his day as corrupt. Discourses, which is all about republics, is also much longer than Prince, which is a pretty telling note of where his interests and sympathies lay.

Looking at that, and also his personal history, what you see is that he wrote The Prince as a job application, and also as a pragmatic realisation of the stark reality - it was hopeless trying to get the people to be free, because they were corrupt and didn't care about freedom, so the only thing to do was to hope for a wise prince to rule them well despite their corruption.

He also never once spoke in favour of the divine right of kings, nor of hereditary monarchy, noting that the odds were not good of having everyone who inherited the position being that good. Rather he was in favour of princes who ruled well, and came to their position by their own virtue. But he was more in favour still of republics, where there'd be so many people able to take positions you'd be sure of getting some good ones. So for example he spoke of the war between Hannibal and Rome, noting that in the beginning Rome needed to hedge and delay, and later to go on the offensive; one Fabius favoured delay, while one Scipio favoured attacking. Because Rome was a republic, they had both men, so could choose, and delayed when they needed to, and attacked when they needed to; had they been a principality, only one of these men would have ruled, and so Rome would have been ruined.

I think that to say that a country becomes great by drawing on the abilities of all of its members, and being willing to promote the most humble, is very humanist. Machiavelli praises the poverty of Ciccinattus, who when he was called on by the Senate to save Rome by becoming Dictator, was quite literally out ploughing his half-acre of fields. A man of little property saved Rome, and after saving it, was content to return to his little property. Praising that is very humanist indeed.

So the humanism of Machiavelli was not actually that elitist at all. You just need to read past his job application letter, and consider the context in which it was all written.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityWhat's this, comrade? You haven't heard of Boris Arvatov? Author of "Red Star"? Co-founder of the Proletkult movement that was suppressed by The Party for being too "leftist"/"workerist"? Report to the re-education camps.

While I've heard the term whispered here and there, I have to confess that I'm largely ignorant of the genre.

There was, however, a Soviet-era Russian sci-fi short story that one of my high school English teachers had us read.  I wish I could recall the author, because I remember the story as being quite good.  It centered around a ship of completely human-looking aliens landing in Antarctica because their blood was built around ammonia instead of water, and they lived at far, far colder temperatures than Earthlings.  One of them fell in love with an Earthling researcher, and at the end of the story, just before the aliens returned for home, the Earthling took off his glove to touch the cheek of the alien -- he got frostbite on his fingers, and she got a burn on her cheek.  Anyone familiar with this story?

!i!

Quote from: Pierce InverarityI've been clamoring for a totally non-ironic hardcore Soviet scifi RPG for the longest time now.

You could run something like Lem's more serious works pretty easily in a half-dozen systems. They're not "social realism" but works like Solaris definitely have a Soviet influence (the theme of the social construction of knowledge in that book, frex). As for running Soviet sci-fi, it'd mostly be a question of whether you wanted to transplant the Soviet Union into space, or present a Marxist-Leninist (or Stalinist or Trotskyist or whateverist) view of the future.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineIt's a good rule of thumb that if someone holds the opinion that thinking about something makes it less fun, they're usually a fucking idiot.

Its also a good rule of thumb that if someone is overanalyzing a subject, then they are not actually trying to participate and experience it.

Also Red Star is not just a d20/OGL setting put out by Green Ronin, but it is also a great comic book series (that has since died after a two year run).

Quote from: jeff37923Its also a good rule of thumb that if someone is overanalyzing a subject, then they are not actually trying to participate and experience it.

Actually, that's a really fucking dumb rule of thumb. Experiencing something is always bound up with thinking it, including rationally analysing it, remembering other relevant facts about it, placing the experience within a greater structure and within context, and so on. The better we think something, the more deeply we experience it.

Nor would your rule of thumb, even if it's true, apply here. Participating in playing a game doesn't mean giving one's self over to the power of the game, such that one's distaste for absolute monarchies etc. must be suspended if the game has them. Black Flag doesn't want to play games that uncritically portray political configurations he considers abhorrent.

He does want to - and evidently does - play RPGs. All that's going on are that the criteria by which he selects games are better worked out than the ordinary person's "I like fantasy because it's cool" reasoning.

Simply because one person's tastes are more sophisticated than another's doesn't mean the person with the more sophisticated taste is somehow less fully participating and experiencing the event or series of events in question.