Split off from the OSSR for Birthright
[/TGFBS]
Starmaker;
I will go point by point for you, but to do so beyond one reply will make this whole thing impossible to read or follow.
First of all the statement you are responding made no claim to be all encompassing. However, even your response admits that D&D players (and thus the theoretical audience for the Birthright campaign setting) is made of people who will acceptStarmaker wrote: Why hello there. (I've met people who hate power fantasies. They're not the D&D audience, but they exist.)
All of this kind hits on the same thing. I am not arguing that the values implied in elf wankery or Harry Potter are good (or ill), merely that people don't recoil in horror from the presentation. Yes people laugh at elf fanboys, but there are enough of them that people don't do it to their faces at conventions. Nobody is supervised to find elf wankery in a D&D product, regardless of edition, because there ALWAYS is an elf obsessed writer on the staff.Elf fanboys are also recognized as a class and laughed at in tabletop, because this archetype is a problem in a cooperative storytelling game, unless your whole party is elf fanboys, and maybe even then.
Harry Potter is an anomalous massive marketing juggernaut; its popularity is not evidence of quality. Furthermore, nothing about either the story or the marketing relies on genetic wizardry; it's just an old tired trope that Rowling used because it was an old tired trope back then, too, and she's a shitty writer. (And it's still not as shitty as Birthright: it's not possible to breed for power, and the people who try are the bad guys.) As for fan appeal, I'd say doublethinking your Hogwarts letter might still come IRL is more appealing than blatant counterfactuality.
Children fantasize about having been adopted because were brought up on the same shitty tropes and don't know any better. To them, parents define the world, and wishing for a better world easily leads to wishing for "better" parents.
Similarly, Harry Potter is VERY MUCH presented as genetic magic being an important part of the story. Rowling invented an entire vocabulary of slurs because of how important it is to the story. It is a central reason why Harry's aunt hates him. Now I would agree that Rowling is not a top tier writer, but she is a successful one by any meaningful measure.
If we accept Ancients and Franks core theory that Birthright failed because people find the concept of "Superior-By-Birth" to be so anathema to 20th/21st century minds that they wouldn't touch the setting with an adventurer's 11 ft. pole why do people spend billions on Rowling drivel that promotes exactly the same sort of hereditary superiority?
First of all, Jedi(ism) was pretty clearly hereditary in the original star wars. Its actually so central that it is a central element of the big reveal in Return of the Jedi.David Brin's Star Wars article may not be enough to vote this election, but it can enlist (with parental consent). Also, I don't need to remind you that people hated midichlorians. The most beloved version of Jedi powers is based on mystical bullshit. It's a bad world to fantasize about in preference to the real one, but in-universe, the notion that consistently doing good makes you a more capable good-doer is kinda progressive. Even if Star Wars isn't especially committed to egalitarianism, what with everyone being sekritly a babby of everyone else, if you tell a kid point blank she can't be a Jedi because her father isn't one, she's going to be fucking pissed.
Now, you are correct that its not in Disney's (or previously Lucasfilm, or current owner) of Star Wars to go around telling kids that they can't be a Jedi because they were not born special enough. Instead the FANTASY is sold as "YOU ARE SPECIAL" right out of the box. I don't see how anybody can look at Star Wars and not immediately see that anybody who is not force sensitive is living in a world where they are always and will never be superior to force users. You cannot ever EARN your way to Jedi status, and people don't care.
All three of these games have a huge amount of verbage devoted to how Vamps/Werewolves/Mages are superior beings to people. Even the lowliest vampire is allowed to treat humans as little more than insects so long as they don't break the masquerade. While Mage and Werewolf are explicitly "hereditary superpowers" games, Vampire manages to add its own layers of hereditary awesome to a protagonist creation that doesn't NEED to have it included (for instance Buff vamps get levels of awesome just for being old.)The main draw of World of Darkness is doing things in what is ostensibly the real world and make use of its rich setting, backstory, and the meaning with which achievements are inherently invested. This means you need a way to kickstart humans into exponential supernatural awesomeness and a reason for the world to stay roughly the same -- but those are game design constraints, not player motivations.
The stereotypical Vampire protagonist is a random lowlife and a victim of violent crime. And then it turns out the vampire hierarchy is even more oppressive than the RL one, BUT, you can totally cheat/lie/manipulate/eat your way to the top.
Werewolf would be massively improved by consensual incest and is NOT a good baseline for tolerable squick.
Mage is where you decide you are no longer one of the sheeple and become awesome by dint of that.
Mage is probably the worst offender because it is basically matrix levels of some people matter and others are meat-bags. Mages count, everybody else is on a default setting that supports the technocracy and evil and you might have to kill somebody at any time because they could help lead the real evils to you.
3.X D&D and beyond pretty much explicitly say that PCs are "exceptional" and even the default die rolling method is designed to create PCs that are above what the game considers average. For all the "Zero-to-Hero" talk D&D PCs have always pretty much started with a significant shove toward Hero...or the character exists to pratfall.The most popular fantasy RPG is one with a stark exponential advancement scheme based on killing genetically superior entities. If the game is not meritocratic and superior genetics win, you get fucking roasted and eaten, possibly with ketchup. You're making an argument straight out of He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named's book if you believe a game can generate zero to hero stories without having it encoded in mechanics.
Also, the games rules are massively less important here than flavor and there are a whole host of D&D character concepts and classes that are fundamentally "you are born or have been gifted with a special power"
in 3.X this is true of every divine caster and sorcerers explicitly. It is narratively true of all ARCANE casters in Forgotten Realms were Ed Greenwood has written plenty of times how the gift of Mystra is required to cast magic and not everybody has it.
Similarly, the issue with Birthright is not that characters have a blood potency number on their character sheet representing how awesome they are. Its that they added a feature to characters that is random and good rolls can give you game breaking abilities.
Lets say that instead of being based on being born, "regents" in (any ruler, getting there in any way) drank from a special magic cup that gave them a magical connection to the land. Instead of a blood score you get a cup score. Then the setting STILL would not have sold because the underlying game is STILL crap.
Wow that's a lot of meaningless ranting. Work hard, put in the effort, and reap the reward is a story. Its a story that is told quite a lot. Its told plenty often enough that wanting to have it as a core conceit for a RPG character seems fine.And yes, I care if people are born with "heroic potential" as in Birthright or just work hard to get to 20. If my character's goal is climbing atop the social hierarchy, the underlying assumption is that there's a social hierarchy to climb. If it's inherently stable with better-than-yous on top and my character lost the genetic lottery, he's eternally consigned to sucking DMPC cock. If he won, he's presumably accidentally fallen through the cracks and must regain his "rightful" place among the assholes. Both stories, from a power fantasy perspective, are strictly inferior to one where he and his friends from level 1 get to create a new social order with those assholes at the bottom. The best outcome with better-than-yous is you as the CFO of Mylan getting to share in the sweet price-gouging. The best meritocratic outcome is free epipens and Heather Bresch pouring you coffee.
However, there are a crapload of hero's journeys that start off with "so [Hero's] mom was smoking hot, so hot she attracted the attention of [god of Something/king of Something] who knocked her up. Later she [had child in secret/died in childbirth/story reason for father not knowing about child]"
Now the first one is much more in line with how we would like the modern world to work. And some of us Fantasize about that paradigm being so absolute that you can literally "work hard" enough to take a seat at the table of the pantheon.
The second one is actually probably more common in fiction than the first, and even though it is clearly espouses a pre-modern belief set, most people don't freak out about that Fantasy, at least as long as they get to be included. If they get the shaft in their escapist fantasy as well there will be hell to pay.
Birthright doesn't have to assume that the world is equal for everybody because it assumes that all the players will be real characters who own lands and run kingdoms. Now its still 2E so once you make your character who is duke so-and-so you have to then take a random roll to see if your character is real enough to be worth keeping or does he exist to do the birthright equivalent of purposefully setting off traps and drinking unlabeled potions.
The thing is, Birthright is a terrible game system. So blaming the hereditary heroes for its failures is like blaming global warming for the sinking of the Titanic.