Genre / roleplayability etc. (an example)

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I get what you're saying, Mark, just so long as we understand that it's what you want, but not necessarily what everybody wants, OK?

[Thierry Michel]

Thanks for the answers. I'm afraid I can't quote everyone, so I'll try to summarize my reactions.

I know the Hogshead games cited, but not the others (Ill check them out). I was also thinking of Hero Wars and its generic mechanics.

By combat, I do not mean necessarily physical combat. In Hero Wars, for instance, everything is combat-like (with the generic tug-o-war mechanics). So you could say I'm half-way past the "combat stage". I agree that some games can handle non-combat-like situations, but I'm not sure they should.

To continue the example, the "Jesuits in China rpg" would be about putting the fear of God in heathens or climatic debates scenes. But the historical Jesuits in China issues (as far as I remember) were somewhat different: the great tension was between means and ends. The Jesuits tried to make the religion compatible with the Chinese customs and beliefs - with the risk of straying from doctrine.  With no army to back them, they had to tread carefully with the authorities (and if memory serves well, they failed). More generally, they were criticized for their worldliness and propensity to mingle in secular concerns (to further the cause of the church, naturally).  The central tension should be between blending in society by watering down faith (and losing your soul), or hold to your orthodoxy and fail to make any progress towards your conversion goal. A bit too heavy (or "serious"), for a rpg to tackle, and not that spectacular either.

A rpg adaptation will necessarily slant things towards a "cinematic" outlook, because it's what rpgs do best. If so, why try to tackle genres that the medium is not the best suited for ?

[if I sound a bit dogmatic, it's just because I'm thining out loud, not because my opinions are set in stone]

[Michael S. Miller]

The central tension should be between blending in society by watering down faith (and losing your soul), or hold to your orthodoxy and fail to make any progress towards your conversion goal.

<<ears perk up>> Did you say "losing your soul?" Does this sound like a Sorcerer mini-supplement in the making or what? Humanity would be Faith. Demon powers would have to be expanded to include lots of influence over people, providing "worldly" benefits to would-be converts, but Needs ... well, they pave the path to hell.

Just a thought...

[Jack Spencer Jr]

A rpg adaptation will necessarily slant things towards a "cinematic" outlook, because it's what rpgs do best. If so, why try to tackle genres that the medium is not the best suited for ?

Because, as you yourself admit, this is an opinion and not a fact. By this same line of reasoning, movies should stick to "cinematic" subject matter, but not all movies are action flicks, are they? A medium need not stick to what it does best because "best" is a value judgement, someone's opinion, not a fact.

I am not sure of what you're trying to say now nor do I think that it will be "solved" in this thread anymore. I mean, it sounded like you said "RPGs can only do this kind of thing, right?" Several said "No" and from there it has become pointless. How about a different approach? What you seem to be doing here is placing a limit on RPGs as a medium (to what end? I am sure you have your reasons) How about instead of limiting RPGs how about we press those limits and see what we can make RPGs do that they haven't done before? How about instead of saying RPGs can do this or that RPGs shouldn't do this, how about finding a way that they can? I would much rather press the limits than define them and then guard that border.

[Thierry Michel]

A medium need not stick to what it does best because "best" is a value judgement, someone's opinion, not a fact

Well, yes and no.  
...

I mean, it sounded like you said "RPGs can only do this kind of thing, right?" Several said "No" and from there it has become pointless.

Well, not totally (for me). I learned that most of you consider that the current limits of rpgs are self-imposed and are genre convention rather than technical limitations. A fair summary ?

[Thierry Michel]

Did you say "losing your soul?" Does this sound like a Sorcerer mini-supplement in the making or what? Humanity would be Faith. Demon powers would have to be expanded to include lots of influence over people, providing "worldly" benefits to would-be converts, but Needs ... well, they pave the path to hell.

I was speaking figuratively, but why not ?

Loss of faith would mean that your character is burned-out, and no longer belongs to the Church. The demons, well, they could represent the Tools available rather than actual creatures.

But I'm not familiar (eh !) with Sorcerer enough to know if that kind of thing is doable.

[Fabrice G.]

Hi Thierry,

Let see ...

I learned that most of you consider that the current limits of rpgs are self-imposed and are genre convention rather than technical limitations.

I almost agree with you, but there's still that genre word that bug me. I think that your sumary would be fairly nice if we take that loaded word out of it.

By combat, I do not mean necessarily physical combat.

I think that we should then refer to conflict.
You mention Hero Wars as resolving everything as if it was combat, it might be because you assimilate combat and conflict. In fact, conflict is much broader than combat alone.
In your "Jesuits in China" exemple, I can imagine a lot of conflicts. Internal as you described it (lose your faith and convert more people/stay true to it and fail in your mission) as well as external ones (centered around the conflictual interests of the catholic chuch and those of the local government/institution/...). So, IMO, your game could be very "conflict-loaded", thus becoming much more captivating.

A rpg adaptation will necessarily slant things towards a "cinematic" outlook, because it's what rpgs do best.

Again, I don't think that it's necessary at all. It could be a design joice, but it's not the only one.
e.g. : you want to design a rpg set before the french revolution, and have an atmosphère of intrigue and conspiracy. You can certainly go the cinematic way and model it like Brotherhood of the wolf or you could go for another style and model it after the dangerous liaisons or the name of the rose (not the same period but quite the right mood). It won't be the same game, but each can be very enjoyable in its own way.

In the end, I think that I'll go with Jack in that if you keep yourself centered about the best adaptation a rpg can give, we won't be able to come to a viable conclusion because it's a matter of personal preference and taste. It's not debatable or seriously arguable.

So I think you should reverse the process and state a genre/style that interest you and try to design a game that promote it. This way we could see how and if it is doable.

Take care,

Fabrice.

Ps: I don't know about your gaming history, but you should try those games I mentioned, as they clearly diverge from the way traditional rpg are designed and played.
pps: I agree that your idea could make a great Sorcerer campain if not a mini-sup. :)

[edited to correct the english name of "Le pacte des loups" :)]

[Thierry Michel]

I almost agree with you, but there's still that genre word that bug me. I think that your sumary would be fairly nice if we take that loaded word out of it.

Sure, what I really meant was "art convention" but I was afraid to sound a bit pompous when talking about games.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I learned that most of you consider that the current limits of rpgs are self-imposed and are genre convention rather than technical limitations. A fair summary ?

The words "darn tootin'" spring to mind. In a sense at any rate. A great deal of how people think about RPG is based on what has gone before. And I am not innocent of this, either. For years I labored under such ridiculous asumptions that an RPG *must be* set in a fantasy world based on Tolkien, that weapons *must* do different dice-types in damage, that combat *must be handled with a d20 and that rolling "20" means double damage. That sort of thing. These are all obviously false (and quite obviously derived from D&D, right?) It only stands to reason then that if these assumptions about RPGs have proved to be false, then any other assumption about RPGs which state that an RPG *must* be anything is probably false, too.

I mean consider, in an RPG, every player takes the part of a single character, right? a PC. The PC's are together in a group and they go through an adventure set up by the GM, right? Well every one of these things has been countered by the game Universalis, and that is just one example.

Isn't this sort of thing refered to as thinking outside of the box? I never really understood it before.