Capturing the Spirit

[Cynthia Celeste Miller]

This topic is inspired by the "Playtesting" thread over on the Publishing forum.

I'm all about capturing the mood and spirit of the game setting / genre using any means available.  Flavor text, layout, page design---you name it.

So, I got to wondering what techniques and methods you guys (not meaning gender-specific, obviously) think works best for this.

I know that it's all relative to the genre / setting in question, but still....

[Blake Hutchins]

Hi Cynthia,

Fluffy though it may seem, I usually start by using stats and skills named for the genre or flavor in question.  Looking at DP9's Tribe 8, which I consider a very fine instance of world-building, the flavor is a bit undermined for me by the naming conventions of the Silhouette system.  Stats like "Creativity," "Influence," and "Unarmed Damage" distance me a shade from the world and (potentially) the story.

Prime example of a well-done instance of this kind of immersive naming is John Tynes's take on a WEG d6-based Stargate SG-1.  The three stats were Muscle, Flex, and Savvy, which combined with the training manual conceit and writing style of the remainder of the rules worked very well at establishing a "look and feel" for the game.

Best,

Blake

[John Wick]

Capturing the spirit of a race is easy. Think about and discuss what they believe.

In the history of humanity, there has never truly been an atheistic culture. More than anything else, what people _believe_ defines them. More than economics (how much does a horse cost?), more than politics, more than _anything_.

For me, the most fascinating aspect of Arthurian myth isn't the armor or the weapons or the politics. It's the fact that people were being killed for espousing the notion of "romantic love." Now _that's_ drama.

Take care,
John

[JSDiamond]

Music is good, as long as you're not like, "Hey, let's listen to this while we game!"

Make the flavor 'real' by making it common.  Like it's always been there.

In terms of character creation: the person first, the numbers last.

J

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Well, Cynthia, it's like this.  Every project is it's own challenge in this and other regards.  The techniques used are naturally limited to what you can include in the book or box.

One of the best ways is for the game itself to reinforce the mood & spirit.  I usually cite Everyway for this.  It is the game that gave a fantasy feel most strongly in it's mechanics over most other fantasy games I have played, thanks largely to the torot-like fate deck.  Compare this to D&D.  What says "fantasy" in rolling a twenty-sided die?

Then there's art, flavor text, page layout and so on.  These all kind of go together.  The best advice is to make sure that the art or fiction or whatever reinforces the spirit.  They can be radically different pieces in style and such, so long as the same mood is evoked.

Now, the layout and design of an RPG book is the subject of a fairly heated debate, heated out-of-proportion to the subjectmatter IMO, because an RPG book has two functions.  

It should be entertaining to read in itself.  This is important, especially if the game is not going to be played.  I would say at least 90% of the RPG material I own has not been used.  Others may have a larger collection and a smaller percentage unused, but some people have a group they can tear away from the holy trilogy (no, the other holy trilogy) long enough to play something else.  If a book is just boring outside of play, I am unlikely to pick it up.  If it looks cool and is well written, I may consider it.  (And if I'm in this sort of situation, there are probably others.  I am not unique)

On the other hand, a RPG book is a reference book.  This means is should contain necessary information to start playing and be well cross-reference to be able to find a particular rule quickley when the situation comes up.

In a sense, I believe it should be like poetry, convey the game in as succinct a manner as possible.  You can always add more later.

In fact, if you are printing up a hard copy you probably will need to add more.  I have done so myself, but I've been told that printers prefer to print up book with page numbers of multible of some number, 15 IIRC but I'm sure I don't.  This means, using this number, if you have a book that is 130 pp. then you'll need to find 5 more pages of filler or cut ten to get a multiple of 15.  This is a good excuse to add that full-page piece of art or whatever you've cut in the initial planning stage.

ANd a note on flavor text.  Well, it's like this.  I fancy myself a writer, too, and I can understand the desire to write a story or two for your game.  But the truth is they aren't as useful or inspirational as we'd like to think, especially those pieces that are just plain bad.  The may get read once and then they're just filler.  When someone purchases a RPG, they want to have their own adventures, not read about someone else's.  As a rule of thumb, and like all rules of thumb it will depend on your thumb, my dictionary defines a short story as being up to 30,000 words.  Take one tenth of that.  When you hit or pass 3,000 words (or better yet, three pages), think long and hard about the piece, what you're trying to say with it and why you're including it in you book.

Page layout and design is another one of those sore points, it seems.  How many complains have you seen for the new Player's Handbook?  Yeah.  Me too.  To be honest the last game I saw with a decent layout is SOrcerer.  It has a nice, clean layout sprinkled with just enough artwork.  It goes back to the utility of the book.  A page made to look like it was spattered with blood may be difficult to read.  If it's difficult to read, then the point of the book is lost.  WHat is a book for if not to be read?

In any case, all of this falls under the Your Milage May Vary heading.  Just my take on it.

[Blake Hutchins]

Take a look at Dying Earth for excellent delivery of flavor and mood, from art to the Vancian writing style.

Fiction writer though I am, fiction isn't something I want in my game books.  There are exceptions, of course.  C.J. Carella's Witchcraft has, in my opinion, the absolute best game-book fiction of anything on the market.  Some of the best artwork, too.  Tribe 8 delivers its setting information entirely via narrative voice fiction -- which incidentally reinforces setting, mood and the oral culture of the tribes.  Some of the Heavy Gear stuff stands up, but it's not particularly compelling.  I also like the Castle Falkenstein narrative, since it's mostly a Tribe 8 style approach to delivering background information; it's breezy and entertaining, and I've quite enjoyed it.

White Wolf has pushed this fiction in the book approach, but they've fallen into the trap of using crap writing in many of their books.  If you're going to include fiction, use good stuff.

I suggest that any fiction/flavor text serve an illustrative purpose, either by conveying mood or supplying setting detail.  For what it's worth, I would avoid the objective of telling a story alongside your rules unless there is some useful correlation.

Best,

Blake

[Cynthia Celeste Miller]

Thanks for all the opinions on the matter.

For what it's worth (which is roughly a plug-nickel), I believe we've done a pretty good job of conveying the flavor of the genre in Cartoon Action Hour.  It proved to be a bit tougher than you'd think, since the "action-adventure cartoon" genre is pretty much several genres combined, but with a certain spin on them.

Anyway, here's what we've done;

1) Pages: The book's layout has a very 80's pop culture look to it.  One type of sidebar looks like a retro television set and the background of the pages has a very subtle, unobstructive star-like thingie ( a bit difficult to explain---but think of the stars used for the Super Friends logo).

2) Writing:  I've tried to keep the game text rather conversational and lite.  I tried to convey the light-heartedness of the genre without cramming it down the readers' throats.

3) Kargorr:  The book has occasional sidebars narrated by a snide, but incompetent cartoon style master villain.  For examples, check out http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic=1101&forum=12&4 .

4) Advice:  I've included a lot of bits about the different conventions of the genre---like how stuffing garbage cans over a thug's head and torso will keep them occupied during combat, for example.  "Who turned the lights out?"

5) System:  The system has many built-in mechanics designed specifically to reflect the tone and feel of the retro-toons.  One example of this is how "character death" is replaced with "out of the fight"....which is followed by a selection of common excuses for a character going out of the fight ("The attack blasts the stone archway above the character, causing it to collapse, thus burying him in rubble").

6) Jargon:  We refer to campaigns as a "series", adventures as "episodes", etc.  Normally, I prefer to stick to the standard names for such things, but I felt it added a splash of color.  I didn't go too far with it though, like calling the GM the "Cartoon Master Guy" and such.  lol

7) Sample Series:  At the end of the book, there will be several ready-to-run series and a bunch of series-hooks.  Hopefully, these will get the reader into the right mindset.

Artwork:  Last but not least, the artwork (masterfully done by Jared Brown and Leanne Shaw) captures the spirit of the retro-toons.  They both have a very solid understanding of the source material and it shows.  

Hopefully, it will work out.  =0)

[James V. West]

Hey

Cartoon Action Hour sounds great! The idea of the master villain is good. So is the way you deal with character "death".

I agree with most of what's been said already. I especially click with the satatement that using generic terms puts a distance between me and the game. For example, the term Game Master. Its boring and does nothing to promote the feel of the game. If you make a TJ Hooker game why not call the GM the "Captain" or something?

Some people argue that it doesn't matter, but I disagree entirely. Calling a GM a GM would be like naming the new Honda Accord "New Model Automobile". Its a label. A form of something.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

On 2001-12-31 18:10, James V. West wrote:

I agree with most of what's been said already. I especially click with the satatement that using generic terms puts a distance between me and the game. For example, the term Game Master. Its boring and does nothing to promote the feel of the game. If you make a TJ Hooker game why not call the GM the "Captain" or something?

On one hand I agree, on the other hand I don't.

This is one of those variable milage issues.  For some games, the new terms they coin for "GM" or whatever are pretentious and just don't fly.  For others it doesn't.  Sometimes it just seems like the time the author spent coining a new term for things that already have  servicable terms is just time better spent doing something else.  Like playtesting or something.

I mean, how often does the term GM come up in a game?  How often do you play a game with a different term but refer to it as GM anyway (I do that for D&D)

Personally, I find that sort of thing beside the point, but whatever.  Who am I to judge?

Some people argue that it doesn't matter, but I disagree entirely. Calling a GM a GM would be like naming the new Honda Accord "New Model Automobile". Its a label. A form of something.

I disagree here.

The Accord analogy would be true if ever RPG that came out was called "D&D" or something similar.

As it stands, an Accord is an Accord.  An Acclaim is an Acclaim.  And they both have steering wheels, seats, windshield wipers and headlights.  Parts of the whole and no need for a new term just because they're on a new kind of car.

[ This Message was edited by: pblock on 2001-12-31 18:56 ]

[Cynthia Celeste Miller]

Cartoon Action Hour sounds great! The idea of the master villain is good. So is the way you deal with character "death".

Thank you, James.  =0)

Some people argue that it doesn't matter, but I disagree entirely. Calling a GM a GM would be like naming the new Honda Accord "New Model Automobile". Its a label. A form of something.

Actually, if you re-read my statement, I mention that I didn't use new jargon for most things.  Just enough of them to add color.  I left GM intact.  Sorry to disappoint here. lol.



_________________
Cynthia Celeste Miller
-Spectrum Game Studios

[ This Message was edited by: Cynthia Celeste Miller on 2001-12-31 18:49 ]

[Blake Hutchins]

Hmm.  Speaking for myself, I don't care about the terms not actually used during gameplay, so I couldn't give a tinker's damn about "GM" or "Storyteller," "player" or "actor."  On the other hand, stat and skill names are pretty important to me, since they come up during virtually every game I've ever played.

Cartoon Action Hour sounds pretty cool, Cynthia.  Even though I'm not a fan of that genre in RPGs, it sounds like y'all are on the right track.

Best,

Blake

[Cynthia Celeste Miller]

I truly appreciate the kind words, Blake.  =0)

Anyway, yeah, I can understand why you don't care which terms are used.  Myself, I have mixed feelings about such things.  So, I used a few new terms, but not for everything.

[hardcoremoose]

Hey all,

I stand firmly on the side of using evocative terminology.  Anyone ever checked out Gygax's Dangerous Journeys (or whatever it was) - that game had to have been the worst in terms of language use.  And this is the guy who gave us D&D.  Sheesh.

As far as text goes...there's a line to be walked there.  I like text that conveys the tone of the game...The Whispering Vault and Kill Puppies For Satan are two of my favorite examples of this.  But your text can't get in the way of the reader's understanding of the rules.  I labored over the WYRD ashcan for months trying to get the right feel to the text, and finally ditched it in favor of a straightforward, almost academic approach.  The rules were just too different from anything else I had ever read...I didn't know how to make them understood and use colorful language at the same time.  Fortunately, I've got a pretty damned good editor for the full print version.  :smile:

For fun in my spare time (don't let Wick see see this) I've been working on a little werewolf game.  Now that's allowed me to be a bit more colorful - stats like Bark and Bite, and a condescending tone to the text (the werewolves are like pets, you see...).  It's not as complete as I would like it - WYRD and a (hopefully) imminent Sorcerer & Sword project have been consuming most of my time - but anyone who wants to take a look can find it here:

http://hardcoreroleplaying.homestead.com/lapdogs.html

So there, I got a shameless plug in.  That's a day's work.

- Scott

[ This Message was edited by: hardcoremoose on 2001-12-31 20:32 ]

[James V. West]

On 2001-12-31 20:30, hardcoremoose wrote:
Hey all,

I stand firmly on the side of using evocative terminology.  Anyone ever checked out Gygax's Dangerous Journeys (or whatever it was) - that game had to have been the worst in terms of language use.  And this is the guy who gave us D&D.  Sheesh.

I guess me and Moose are art-weirdos :smile:. I take the presentation of my creations just as seriously as the way they play. In fact, I can't imagine doing it any other way. (side note: this is no indication that I'm actually *good* at it, just that I prefer to try) I spend a lot more time reading, looking, and flipping through the games on my shelf than I do playing them--but that's mainly because I've been without a decent group for far too long.

So my point was that, just as "system does matter", so does everything else. Take the GURPS Vampire for example. A game that's supposed to be dramatic and gothic done to a rigid sim. I don't play Vampire, but it hurt me just to look at the GURPS version. I thought the original Vampire had too many rules anyway.

Maybe using GM was a poor choice for the argument. It doesn't really come up that much during play, I know, so I can live with it in most games (just not mine). But other terms that *do* get used a lot ought to evoke the right feel, just as everyone has already said.

[Cynthia Celeste Miller]

I take the presentation of my creations just as seriously as the way they play.

As do I.  To me, Castle Falkenstein is an infinitely more intriguing product than, say, Amber.  Castle Falkenstein was laid out and presented to capture the reader's imagination and suck them into that setting.  On the other hand, Amber's presentation was bland and didn't convey any of the elements Amber is notorious for.

In fact, I believe it was Castle Falkenstein and Paranoia that really opened my eyes to how effective a tool non-system aspects could be in making the game come alive.

Hopefully, when you see my game, you'll agree that I put a great deal of thought into the matter.

Maybe using GM was a poor choice for the argument. It doesn't really come up that much during play, I know, so I can live with it in most games (just not mine). But other terms that *do* get used a lot ought to evoke the right feel, just as everyone has already said.

I can see the point of using an alternative to the word "Game Master", so I don't think it was a poor example.  I simply didn't want to go overboard with new jargon.  A few examples of game terms I used to convey the spirit of the source material:

* Oomph:  a stat in the game that represents "that something extra" a hero or villain has (transported over from my Four Colors rpg).

* Series:  campaign

* Episode:  adventure

* Hurt Points:  "hit points"

* Channel:  chapter