A topic that has come up in the past, though never directly, is regarding certain genre conventions and how they might, or should, be applied to the game during the design stages.
For example, in your Zombie genre, a 'weakness' leveled at most of the games out there is that the zombies are treated as monsters, rather than, say... an environment. To be true to the Zombie genre the other PC's are the real threat.
In the Super's genre, it's 'Not about the powers, its about the Protagonists and the soap opera drama that comes with wearing tights!'. After all, a true super will already have, or spontaniously develope, exactly the right power to handle whatever threat is tossed at him, but dealing with the consequences of his ex-wife, who is really the clone of his one true love, turning into a demon from hell isn't something you can just handle with powers... it requires FEELING. Or something.
Is the heart of Pulp 'Action' or is it 'Optimism'? Is transhumanism a proper them to explore in your cyberpunk game?
I have the answer. It doesn't lie in close, literary examinations of 'Genre' or 'theme'; it doesn't lie in any high handed academic studies, or intellectuliod posturing theories. It lies in how we game, why we game. Not why we play 'Supers' or whatever, why we game in general. I don't know about you, but when I set my way back machine for....way back, I come up on the childish glee of wishing 'I could do that'.. be it swing a sword at a dragon, fly and blast folks with the awesome powers, or blow apart zombies with a shotgun.
Now, these days I'm a bit older, and bit wiser and a bit more mature. In theory. But when it comes to sitting down at the table, all I really want to do is recapture some of that 'I wish I could do that' magic. I don't much care for the 'deeper meanings' of shit, or the emulation of 'genre conventions'. Some folks do, some folks don't.
Now, if I extrapolate gaming to, say, movies I get a sort of analog here. See, I love stupid movies, sure. But I love disecting every aspect of the film, good or bad, and catching on to some awesome shit (like the fact that Neo is the only Character (as opposed to NPC) in teh Matrix films who wears non-reflective clothing... what does it mean?... you know what? Nobody want to talk about that shit with me. They represent your mainstream gamers. They don't care about the high-falutin' shit. Sure, it's awesome if its the infrastructure of a fun game, but you bring that shit to the front and they'll get bored, they'll walk away.
They are, like I am in gaming, interested in having fun. Presto, the heart of the game. If Superman doesn't fly, they'll demand their money back. If he doesn't moon after Lois Lane some internet geeks will bitch.
Ima gonna highlight me some important shit and let this discussion roll...
I think it's important not to lose the basics when messing with the details.
Gamma World D20 got wrapped up in nanotech, societies, and forming a history and forgot that the heart of the game was cool mutations and fighting weird stuff.
A problem occurs when people disagree about even the core is. Not everyone wants the same thing from supers; some want the angst, some want godlike powers, some like crime fighting, some want golden age thoughtless pounding on bad guys.
Good point. :)
I've seen a lot of games where they take a "setting" and layer a generic RPG system over top of it. Actually, this is probably exactly the complaint so frequently levelled at White Wolf's Vampire game or any of the one's mentioned in the "Bait and Switch" thread.
Quote from: NicephorusA problem occurs when people disagree about even the core is. Not everyone wants the same thing from supers; some want the angst, some want godlike powers, some like crime fighting, some want golden age thoughtless pounding on bad guys.
That's why it's best to have lots of different games.
Quote from: droogThat's why it's best to have lots of different games.
Until there is one game to rule them all, and in the darkness bind them...
The core of the game is simple, childish fun. All else is gravy. Good gravy can make bad food paletable, and good food doesn't need gravy (good or bad)...but good food and a selection of gravy can make everyone happy in their pants... if they wear any.
Quote from: SpikeThe core of the game is simple, childish fun.
For you, right?
This looks like it'll be a real interesting topic, once it starts up.
So, Spike: You said you were gonna highlight some important, core stuff. We're all ears. What'choo got?
Quote from: droogFor you, right?
For the supermajority, actually. D&D is the God of RPGs for a reason.
Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerFor the supermajority, actually. D&D is the God of RPGs for a reason.
What the fuck do I care about the 'supermajority'?
Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerFor the supermajority, actually. D&D is the God of RPGs for a reason.
Are you saying that D&D is simple, childish fun? I really don't agree with that.
This is an excellent thread that's really made me think about game design. You find the core of whatever genre your working in (or at least your concept of the core), and then every detail you add to the game (mechanic or setting) is then judged against that concept
Me likie
Quote from: LostSoulAre you saying that D&D is simple, childish fun? I really don't agree with that.
At its heart, yes. That's not a bad thing. The pure challenge of a well-designed dungeon is the heart of the hobby, and yet it is simple and childish fun. Sure, it is quite possible to expand upon that heart and make something complex and mature out of that--I've done so, as have many others--but to deny the heart of the hobby (and thus the power therein that draws and keeps so many into it) is foolish, however well-intentioned, because that heart is a great strength.
Quote from: droogWhat the fuck do I care about the 'supermajority'?
Sooner or later you will lose your current group. If you wish to maintain yourself as an active hobbyist, then you must create a new group. To do that you will have to deal with the rest of the gamers out there. Ignoring D&D means that you will cut yourself off of the vast majority of the tabletop gamers in the world, and that doesn't do anything to guarantee that you'll get the folks that you want at your table. Knowing D&D and the audience that plays it goes a long way towards being able to effectively and efficiently achieve that goal, no matter what you think of D&D, as it is--and ever shall be--the standard against which all other RPGs--tabletop, console and online--are measured against.
I'm doing fine, thanks.
QuoteWhat the fuck do I care about the 'supermajority'?
You might care what's popular if:
You are designing games or working in the gaming industry.
You are trying to setup a new gaming group, or find new players for your group.
If you aren't doing those things, and have a group that you're enjoying playing [whatever game] with -- who cares what everyone else is doing.
Well, I'm not designing games or working in the so-called industry. And I've found several new groups without trying too hard, none of which seem to be playing D&D.
My old group is part of an extended tribe of perhaps two dozen players, all of whom have veritable contempt for D&D. I've got a much more balanced view because of my online activity, in point of fact.
Anyway, I was simply questioning the assertion that the 'heart' of roleplaying is 'simple, childish fun'. Sure, it can be. But not for everybody, any more than everybody likes simple, childish books.
Quote from: droogAnyway, I was simply questioning the assertion that the 'heart' of roleplaying is 'simple, childish fun'. Sure, it can be. But not for everybody, any more than everybody likes simple, childish books.
'Simple childish fun" really is too broad and vague to be of any use.
What's the simple childish fun of CoC or AFMBE? Horror?
Twilight 2000 and similar ilk? Some people want complexity - otherwise Hero would have disappeared a decade ago. Some people want grim challenges.
I really doubt that childish fun could be defined in such a way that it can be found in all games yet also be a useful concept.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nicephorus A problem occurs when people disagree about even the core is. Not everyone wants the same thing from supers; some want the angst, some want godlike powers, some like crime fighting, some want golden age thoughtless pounding on bad guys.
Quote from: droogThat's why it's best to have lots of different games.
Yes. But I wasn't clear. I was thinking of the problem that occurs when people within a group have differing ideas on what the core is without initially realizing it. Ever had one of those campaigns where everyone is trying to pull it in a different direction until it falls apart after a few sessions?
Quote from: droogWhat the fuck do I care about the 'supermajority'?
Oh yea, right. You're a big cool rebel because you play Sorcerer. I'd forgotten.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPunditOh yea, right. You're a big cool rebel because you play Sorcerer. I'd forgotten.
Actually, I'm so cool it wouldn't matter
what I played.
Quote from: NicephorusQuoteYes. But I wasn't clear. I was thinking of the problem that occurs when people within a group have differing ideas on what the core is without initially realizing it. Ever had one of those campaigns where everyone is trying to pull it in a different direction until it falls apart after a few sessions?
More than a couple, comrade.
Quote from: droogWell, I'm not designing games or working in the so-called industry. And I've found several new groups without trying too hard, none of which seem to be playing D&D.
My old group is part of an extended tribe of perhaps two dozen players, all of whom have veritable contempt for D&D. I've got a much more balanced view because of my online activity, in point of fact.
Anyway, I was simply questioning the assertion that the 'heart' of roleplaying is 'simple, childish fun'. Sure, it can be. But not for everybody, any more than everybody likes simple, childish books.
You won't have that forever. "Sooner or later" means that, inevitably, you'll be in a situation where none of this is true.
Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerYou won't have that forever. "Sooner or later" means that, inevitably, you'll be in a situation where none of this is true.
It's going to be pretty hard for you to prove that without stalking me for the rest of my life, isn't it?
Man, I take off for a few days and my thread explodes!!!
Or only a little bit. I seem to have swamped a few people with the size of my initial post on the topic. Lemme see if I can pare it down a bit to make it clearer.
Right: The heart of the game, the 'simple childish fun' that I spoke of is not necessarily simple or childish per se. It's that 'wow, I want to be doing that' factor from comics. Being an investigator in CoC is likely not to be 'fun'... but playing the character can be. When you read Sherlock Holmes or watch one of the many movies, the 'child' in you likely wants to BE Holmes, or at least Holmsian, for that expirence.
*snipped not very short repeat of OP*
Cool Characters doing whatever COOL THINGS their literary counterparts can do is the heart, everything else goes on top of that, not 'instead of'.
As a side note: Must work on expressing myself clearly... :o
Quote from: droogIt's going to be pretty hard for you to prove that without stalking me for the rest of my life, isn't it?
No, I'll just wait for you to bitch about group problems.
Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerNo, I'll just wait for you to bitch about group problems.
Ahhh...so stalking online? That's all right, I don't mind having a friend.
Is this going to take up a lot of your time?
Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerSooner or later you will lose your current group. If you wish to maintain yourself as an active hobbyist, then you must create a new group. To do that you will have to deal with the rest of the gamers out there. Ignoring D&D means that you will cut yourself off of the vast majority of the tabletop gamers in the world, and that doesn't do anything to guarantee that you'll get the folks that you want at your table. Knowing D&D and the audience that plays it goes a long way towards being able to effectively and efficiently achieve that goal, no matter what you think of D&D, as it is--and ever shall be--the standard against which all other RPGs--tabletop, console and online--are measured against.
I'm not denying any of this, but I thought I'd throw this random data point out there.
I started roleplaying with TSR's Basic Marvel Super Heroes set in '85-86 that I pestered my folks into buying for me from Toys R Us after seeing ads for it in my Spiderman comics. I had no idea what roleplaying was, and hadn't heard of D&D. I formed a group with some friends from school, and started playing and stumbled onto the broader hobby. But...
I've been a member of three or four games clubs over the years, and been a part of dozen of groups. And none of them showed any interest in playing D&D (Most people I have met tended to mainly play stuff like Traveller, CoC, Champions, Star Wars D6, WHFRP and so on for the first ten years and then various White Wolf stuff since the early 90's) until I joined a new group about 6 months ago. So that's twenty or so years, playing in dozens of different groups, without finding a group that wanted to play D&D. This is in the UK, if that makes any difference.
Weird, huh?
Quote from: warrenI'm not denying any of this, but I thought I'd throw this random data point out there.
I started roleplaying with TSR's Basic Marvel Super Heroes set in '85-86 that I pestered my folks into buying for me from Toys R Us after seeing ads for it in my Spiderman comics. I had no idea what roleplaying was, and hadn't heard of D&D. I formed a group with some friends from school, and started playing and stumbled onto the broader hobby. But...
I've been a member of three or four games clubs over the years, and been a part of dozen of groups. And none of them showed any interest in playing D&D (Most people I have met tended to mainly play stuff like Traveller, CoC, Champions, Star Wars D6, WHFRP and so on for the first ten years and then various White Wolf stuff since the early 90's) until I joined a new group about 6 months ago. So that's twenty or so years, playing in dozens of different groups, without finding a group that wanted to play D&D. This is in the UK, if that makes any difference.
Weird, huh?
Might vary by age and location. I find that of roleplayers 16-20 or so, most are familiar with DnD. A few with D20 Modern. Of course, that's all I've been familiar with up until recently, and I tought most of the people in my most recent group with a gutted version of D20, so...
And droog, could you quit with the stalking comments? I mean, if you're that desperate for attention, fine, but stalking just isn't as fun unless it ends in a pipe-bombing (mmmmm... shrapnel). Besides the fact that it contributes nothing to the conversation.
Quote from: NicephorusWhat's the simple childish fun of CoC or AFMBE? Horror?
Twilight 2000 and similar ilk?
Laughing at being scared by the boogeyman and playing with fireworks when you're not supposed to, respectively.
Quote from: beejazzAnd droog, could you quit with the stalking comments? I mean, if you're that desperate for attention, fine, but stalking just isn't as fun unless it ends in a pipe-bombing (mmmmm... shrapnel). Besides the fact that it contributes nothing to the conversation.
Fair enough. I wasn't being very serious, you know. Bradford just amuses me with his network externalities.
Quote from: Nicephorus'Simple childish fun" really is too broad and vague to be of any use.
What's the simple childish fun of CoC or AFMBE? Horror?
Twilight 2000 and similar ilk? Some people want complexity - otherwise Hero would have disappeared a decade ago. Some people want grim challenges.
I really doubt that childish fun could be defined in such a way that it can be found in all games yet also be a useful concept.
You over define childish, read too much into simple and try to define fun. For shame. ;)
The simple childish fun for those games is the same as it is for any other game, playing pretend, being a 'cool character' that you aren't. If you want to be a dapper man of means in the early 1900's who hangs out in gentlemen's clubs and dabbles in 'things man was not meant to know'... guess what, you can't do it in real life. And all that dabbling in real life is likely just a game of pretend as well.
Play Call of Cthulu and you can, for a few hours a week, BE that dapper bachelor, and HE"S not actually pretending when he dabbles...that shit is for real, and might just eat him if he's not careful. RPG's are a game of pretend, wrapped up in adult terms. And they are fun.
But isn't calling it 'childish' putting a value judgement on it? Why is using your imagination childish? Because other people say so?
Quote from: droogBut isn't calling it 'childish' putting a value judgement on it? Why is using your imagination childish? Because other people say so?
No. Only because older people forget to. Blame Nader.
It does come down to some sort of cultural criticism.
I mean, when I play RPGs, I think I'm doing something as valuable as reading and more valuable than watching TV. I don't think I'm childish.
Well, it beats the hell out of "immature", "infantile", and "sophomoric." Still, it's a symantic argument. Got a better term that captures it? "Nostalgic?" "The Good Old Days?" Doesn't fit so well with the younger players, though.
Quote from: beejazzWell, it beats the hell out of "immature", "infantile", and "sophomoric." Still, it's a symantic argument. Got a better term that captures it? "Nostalgic?" "The Good Old Days?" Doesn't fit so well with the younger players, though.
I'm not trying to be difficult, but none of those things capture what I'm after. It's not just semantics. I'm not nostalgic; I don't want to recapture my childhood. I want to continue to do roleplaying in a way that's relevant to my life as it exists.
Well, I know full well nostalgia's ruled out. 'Specially if I play it. Point is, I think we both know the point it's trying to get across, however it's worded.
Quote from: beejazzWell, I know full well nostalgia's ruled out. 'Specially if I play it. Point is, I think we both know the point it's trying to get across, however it's worded.
I think I know, but I don't agree.
The pleasures I get from RPGs are not always simple nor childish. If they were, I would not be pursuing them. To me, that says that the heart of the game is something different, for me.
Then what are you after? Not the "Kewl Powerz"? Not the "Little guy in the big, wild world"? Not the unquestionable heroics or uber-cool shady amorality? Or are you one of those folks into "introspection" (Goddamnit! How did this century turn individualism from doing shit, making due with less, and over-all self-sufficiency into laziness, entitlement, and perversity?!)
Quote from: beejazz(Goddamnit! How did this century turn individualism from doing shit, making due with less, and over-all self-sufficiency into laziness, entitlement, and perversity?!)
Ah, my friend, if only I could answer that....
But I can answer your other question, at least to some extent.
When I started playing, it was all about the swords, the armour and the magic as kewl powerz. That was when I was 17.
I gravitated towards wanting more and more verisimilitude. Instead of fantasy I ran historical stuff, still with some mystical goings-on in the background ('genre' or 'background'). That was when I was in my late 20s and 30s.
Now I just want to help create group fiction, and any magic is there mainly as a symbolic device. I'm 42.
Oh, and shady amorality has always been fine with me, from the earliest times to now.
Quote from: droogBut I can answer your other question, at least to some extent.
When I started playing, it was all about the swords, the armour and the magic as kewl powerz. That was when I was 17.
I gravitated towards wanting more and more verisimilitude. Instead of fantasy I ran historical stuff, still with some mystical goings-on in the background ('genre' or 'background'). That was when I was in my late 20s and 30s.
Now I just want to help create group fiction, and any magic is there mainly as a symbolic device. I'm 42.
Oh, and shady amorality has always been fine with me, from the earliest times to now.
But do you enjoy more, as a player, the kewl powerz, or your character(s)? I don't specifically have to have 'kewl powerz' as part of the 'heart' of the game, but rather a character you can specifically define and enjoy playing, enjoy doing whatever you enjoy doing through the mechanism of the character.
I don't claim that capturing a specific level of detail is better or worse, only that more than a few games and design pundits seem to suggest that there are 'better' ways of capturing the 'genre' that have little to do with the character.
I mean, in a zombie game, if that were to capture my fancy, I'd like not to have my 'immersion' of the character wrecked by the knowledge that shooting a zombie is a waste of time because the game designer listened to some genre pundit and made teh zombies a terrain feature. I want my character to have meaning, and my characters actions to be impactful. If I were playing a zombie survival horror game, I'd like to use it to explore the concept of building up a safe community, eventually eradicating the zombie menace, and the fun of blasting zombies left and right. I'm not there to explore the 'man's inhumanity to man' a la a George Romero pastiche. the Zombie game should be able to encompass both.
If I were playing a supers' game, i'd want concrete ideas of what my powers were, and a fair amount of control over what those powers WERE... and the ability to use them to resolve challenges presented by the game. If instead my character was a collection of soap opera cliches dressed up in spandex and blinkenlights, then the game isn't going to engage me. To me a good supers game should be able to encompass BOTH styles of play. Super-soaps does not mean you don't need kewl Powerz.
This is the heart, the point. You can do your Romero style zombie game, or your Super Soaps and still have good detailed characters and 'kewl powerz', but a game focusing too intently on capturing on 'vision' of a genre is going to fail miserably to engage those who don't just want to play out that one take on the genre in question.
Characters and what they can, or can't do is more important than environmental stuff. AFMBE is successful and popular as a zombie game because despite cries from a few Romero fanatics, you don't need to make special rules and 'enviromental hazard' zombies to play a romero influenced zombie games, but such rules would interfer with an 'army of darkness' style blast'em up romp... it encompasses both just fine.
Popular Supers games (pick one, I like champions or Heroes Unlimited) give you well defined characters and powers. Yet they don't do anything to get in the way of 'super soaps' if that's your bag. Reducing your super to a 'theme' and 'protagonism points', and focusing entirely on super-soap dramatics, as some loudly cry for, would support only that narrow style of play and be boring to people who want to fly, goddamnit!
Magic as a stylistic flourish is a meaningless statement on the topic. A more accurate, for this discussion, comment would talk about how central your characterizations are, or how detailed or undetailed they are. Or something like that. Group narrative is likewise meaningless if each character in the group is realized enough to be 'kewl' in his or her own way.
I think I made my case clearest about three paragraphs up... damn my verbal diarhea
Quote from: SpikeThis is the heart, the point. You can do your Romero style zombie game, or your Super Soaps and still have good detailed characters and 'kewl powerz', but a game focusing too intently on capturing on 'vision' of a genre is going to fail miserably to engage those who don't just want to play out that one take on the genre in question.
But that's an assertion that works
for you. Let's take
My Life with Master: it certainly engages
me. Do I want to play it all the time? No, but there isn't anything I want to play all the time.
Quote from: SpikeCharacters and what they can, or can't do is more important than environmental stuff. AFMBE is successful and popular as a zombie game because despite cries from a few Romero fanatics, you don't need to make special rules and 'enviromental hazard' zombies to play a romero influenced zombie games, but such rules would interfer with an 'army of darkness' style blast'em up romp... it encompasses both just fine.
Well, they
might. That's about all
I can say. But I don't think it's really about 'genre' or whatever else; it's about whether you like the specific texture of those rules.
It seems to me your approach is very idealistic – you have a Platonic ideal of what a roleplaying game is and you compare any deviance to that ideal.
Quote from: droogAhhh...so stalking online? That's all right, I don't mind having a friend.
Is this going to take up a lot of your time?
No, that's what subordinates are for. I need to train the interns somehow, and putting them on you will do as a beginner's course. ;)
Quote from: droogBut that's an assertion that works for you. Let's take My Life with Master: it certainly engages me. Do I want to play it all the time? No, but there isn't anything I want to play all the time.
Well, they might. That's about all I can say. But I don't think it's really about 'genre' or whatever else; it's about whether you like the specific texture of those rules.
It seems to me your approach is very idealistic – you have a Platonic ideal of what a roleplaying game is and you compare any deviance to that ideal.
You missed the point, Droog. Yes, MLwM might appeal to you. Indeed, you say it does and I'm inclined to take your word for it. But, by putting it's focus on something other than my Platonic Ideal, it specifically excludes a wide audience. This would suggest to me that that game represents something of a Platonic ideal itself. If you like the entire package, then it is the game for you. If you don't like it, fuck off. This is limiting, perhaps arbitrarily.
It IS limiting, should be stressed, as a number of people who are aware of the game (the otherwise non-inclusive internet gamers catagory) are divided on wether or not it even should be called an RPG!
Now, as to wether or not my 'heart of the game' is or is not a platonic ideal, I don't really care to debate. I submit to you this: as a marketing decision alone, making a game more inclusive of it's own 'genre', rather than restictively narrowing it to one interpretation, is a good idea. Obviously over inclusive design is not practical or necessarily smart. GURPS gets away with a lot, but fails miserably in certain genres unless radically rewritten. Rifts is wildly inclusive and most people agree it's incredibly fun, but horribly broken... for that very reason in both cases.
My suggestion of making the game more inclusive by focusing on letting players have solid, enjoyable characters who can impact the game meaningfully (even if it is just blowing away a ghoul that wants to eat you with a webley revolver) is going to make a game more fun and enjoyable for a wider audience. Period.
I'll even submit to you that exploring themes of mormon cowboy killers for God is going to be largely the same for people if adapted to another system... so long as the GM and players are all 'getting' the 'genre' of DitV. Add what rules you need to on top of, rather than instead of, a solid set of core mechanics.
Doesn't sound platonic to me. It sounds practical. Like I've always said before, what rules are stopping you from having soap opera crises in Champions?
Quote from: SpikeI'll even submit to you that exploring themes of mormon cowboy killers for God is going to be largely the same for people if adapted to another system... so long as the GM and players are all 'getting' the 'genre' of DitV. Add what rules you need to on top of, rather than instead of, a solid set of core mechanics.
We're coming at this from entirely different angles. To me, the mechanics of DitV
are the reason to play it. It's not really about Mormon cowboy killers for God – that's the set-up, not the game.
If you want to 'explore themes', you can indeed do so in any system you wish. But playing DitV is playing DitV, and no other game has the same texture of play (and you can say the same about any game).
QuoteDoesn't sound platonic to me. It sounds practical. Like I've always said before, what rules are stopping you from having soap opera crises in Champions?
Well, what I'm saying is that you can do whatever you like with whatever rules you like, but each system will do it in a different way, and some will resonate better with you than others.
By the way, I'm not sure where the disconnect is coming from, but I assure you that "solid, enjoyable characters who can impact the game meaningfully" are very important to games like MLwM and DitV.
Quote from: droogBy the way, I'm not sure where the disconnect is coming from, but I assure you that "solid, enjoyable characters who can impact the game meaningfully" are very important to games like MLwM and DitV.
To be honest, it is my fault for mentioning DitV. I only know the premise of MLwM, so I didn't want to use it. Neither may apply overmuch, as I understand that within some limits DitV at least allows for some well defined characters (I am less a fan of the 'make shit up' school of thought, but some people swear by it. A la Wushu fans and UA skill purists)
More to the point, I've seen people on this site talk about Superhero games that reduce Superheroes to one generic stat of 'protagonism' and a list of soap opera guidelines. Sure, it will be fun for like minded players, but it utterly exiles guys that just want to fly and blast shit.
I've seen complaints that AFMBE zombies are killable monsters, and that the focus of the game isn't on man's inhumanity to man, and zombies are set dressing. Sure, such a game might be fun to some Romero purists, it dismisses the entire subset of players who simply enjoy putting two barrels of buckshot into a deader and calling it a day.
I've also ran into hundreds of people on line and off who suggest that a 1930's 'adventurer' who might fly a biplane and has explored the dark heart of africa in search of gold and carries a webley revolver and a combat knife is completely inappropriate for Call of Cthulu (or for that matter, a Foriegn Legion veteran who's seen too much) because he actually knows how to fight!!! Oh, the horror. He's still gonna be eaten by the end of a game, perhaps, but that isn't he point. He's a valid archetype for the era and even the type of stories being told. Yet there are people who honestly seem to think that gun or combat skills don't belong in the game because it isn't 'genre' to them.
Genre is a pretty fucking loose catagory. Characters are not.
In short: My 'heart of the game' is not an attack against your favorite games. It's an attack perhaps against a certain philosophy of design I've seen slowly cropping up in the internet and out of it. Hell, I've been guilty a bit in recent past, attacking the new cyberpunk setting from R.talsorian for being more transhuman than CP. Mea Culpa.
Quote from: SpikeI've seen complaints that AFMBE zombies are killable monsters, and that the focus of the game isn't on man's inhumanity to man, and zombies are set dressing. Sure, such a game might be fun to some Romero purists, it dismisses the entire subset of players who simply enjoy putting two barrels of buckshot into a deader and calling it a day.
It's a lot of fun, but sooner or later your characters are going to wind up with enough weaponry, vehicles and smarts that a simple mob of zombies isn't a challenge any more
Quote from: Hastur T. FannonIt's a lot of fun, but sooner or later your characters are going to wind up with enough weaponry, vehicles and smarts that a simple mob of zombies isn't a challenge any more
Ah... but you do realize that MY personal enjoyment of the zombie game goes AFTER you can start dealing with smaller mobs of Zombies and can now address the more complex challenges of 'solving' the apocalypse in the first place.
I know you know, because I told you so...:p
now i like to play Archlord online..................
http://www.playerturbo.com
QuoteIt's a lot of fun, but sooner or later your characters are going to wind up with enough weaponry, vehicles and smarts that a simple mob of zombies isn't a challenge any more
I have a comic... some kind of zombie anthology... can't find it at the moment.
Anyway, the 2 characters in one story have an armoured tank, suits of heavy armour, and flamethrowers. They drive around the countryside roasting zombies whenever they find 'em. To these guys, it's like a job. The zombies are really no threat to them.
That is until one of the guys gets bit by a mosquito. A zombie blood infected mosquito.
All the gear didn't make too much difference. The story ended as zombie stories tend to end...
Quote from: SpikeGenre is a pretty fucking loose catagory. Characters are not.
In short: My 'heart of the game' is not an attack against your favorite games. It's an attack perhaps against a certain philosophy of design I've seen slowly cropping up in the internet and out of it. Hell, I've been guilty a bit in recent past, attacking the new cyberpunk setting from R.talsorian for being more transhuman than CP. Mea Culpa.
I barely understand what you're saying, so don't worry about offending me. Could you explain a bit more? What do you mean by "Genre is a pretty fucking loose catagory. Characters are not."? What is the design philosophy you don't like? Which games exemplify it?
Quote from: droogI barely understand what you're saying, so don't worry about offending me. Could you explain a bit more? What do you mean by "Genre is a pretty fucking loose catagory. Characters are not."? What is the design philosophy you don't like? Which games exemplify it?
Genre is a very loose grouping of 'tropes' or common themes. Very loose, by nature. To give you an example: in music Heavy Metal is a Genre. So is Pop Music. This morning someone mentioned to me that Ozzy Osborne is now found in 'Pop Music'. His music hasn't changed since it was recorded, but the perception of it has.... at least to some poeple.
More to the point: Way back when Black Sabbath started doing it's thing, they weren't listing a bunch of tropes and creative concepts for their music so that they would be 'Rock and Roll'... they more likely just wrote and played what they liked.
Most authors and other artistic creator types probably don't sit down with a list of 'things' they need to do to make a proper 'genre' story, they simply write. Eventually, enough people do enough of the same sort of stuff that a bunch of 'things' start to appear across a wide enough selection that someone, in the inevitably human process of catagorization, labels a 'genre' and attempts to fix it in stone. Maybe some hack comes along later and writes a 'genre' story, putting in as many tropes as he can. It will probably suck.
Thus genre's are loose things and open to interpretation... and endless subdivision. Zombie flicks are a genre, Romero Zombie Flicks are a subdivision. 'Early Romero...' might be a subdivision of THAT!
On the other hand, a solidly characterized 'character' is the same regardless. If you want to get fancy we could talk about Jungian Archetypes. Any given actual character might be unique, certainly... or at least as unique as any given real person is (not as much as you might like...), but you always have characters. And characters are what participants in an entertainment event sympathize with, identify with. If you got a good story, but crappy characters, chances are people aren't gonna like your story much. If you got a crappy story, but great characters you can skate quite a bit. Ask Lucas...
Does that clear it up at all?
QuoteDoes that clear it up at all?
Not really.
Are you saying that 'genre' is a problematic term? And that great characters are essential to memorable fiction? I'd have to agree with that, but at the same time, it's pretty broad and vague.
What I'm proposing is that instead of concerning ourselves with 'genre', we look at each game in its own right. It's not always useful to slot two 'zombie games' together. The less generalization and the more solidly-rooted, specific critique the better.
At the moment I can only guess at what you're criticizing and what you're really talking about.
Quote from: droogNot really.
Are you saying that 'genre' is a problematic term? And that great characters are essential to memorable fiction? I'd have to agree with that, but at the same time, it's pretty broad and vague.
What I'm proposing is that instead of concerning ourselves with 'genre', we look at each game in its own right. It's not always useful to slot two 'zombie games' together. The less generalization and the more solidly-rooted, specific critique the better.
At the moment I can only guess at what you're criticizing and what you're really talking about.
Genre is subjective. If you try too hard to make the game too specific to a single genre, or rather your interpretation of it you might miss entirely what other people got out of the exact same sources... their interpretation of Genre.
Characters are not nearly as subjective, not nearly as open to interpretation.
Doesn't any game's character creation system presuppose a genre? Or even impose a genre?
In some way you're opposing 'genre' to 'characters', but I just don't get it.
Genre is composed of elements which are only very loosely linked, but are often associated.
I'm going to relate it to writing... There is language, setting, props, and message.
The most obvious elements are setting and props: the characters are in an abandoned house on a hill, there is a strange whispering statue, and vampires are lurking outside; the characters are on a small scout ship, the automated systems are on the blink, and strange robots have broken out of the cargo hold.
Then there is the implicit or explicit message woven into the genre. The horror genre has messages of hopelessness, despair, revulsion, and so forth. The SciFi genre is tricky, since it's often broken up into multiple subgenres, but one can identify either the utopian 'reason can overcome the world's problems' or the dystopian 'reason can't overcome the world's problems' (to put it very very simply).
Finally, there's language. In a story, this is word choice, and how scenes are presented to the reader. 'It was a dark and stormy night' vs. 'The heavens wept, but no amount of tears could wash away this city's sins' vs. 'Rain beat down on the planetary surface, obscuring the waiting doom above' vs. 'The long dry days had finally given way to a vigorous storm'
I realized a few years ago why I (and other geeks) were having so many long and protracted arguments about high fantasy, low fantasy, space opera, hard SF, etc etc. And it was the above.
I mean, Scooby Doo has elements of horror -- it has the setting and props of the horror genre. It just doesn't have the language or message of horror.
Conversely, a WWII movie can have the message and language of horror, even if it doesn't have a haunted house or ghouls.
A side issue -- a lot of genres are actually 'anti' genres, which complicates working out just what they are. For example, low fantasy is primarily defined by being 'not high fantasy.' Given there are several identifying factors of high fantasy, and variation of what high fantasy can be, the specific items being reacted to lead to an every broader spectrum of low fantasy.
For example, high fantasy is noted by lots of magic and a certain cinematic style. So one low fantasy story might have very little magic... but still is cinematic. Another low fantasy story has oodles of magic... but the style is dark and gritty. And thus sparks internet arguments.