Topic: Genre and thinking outside of this particular box.
Started by: Jack Spencer Jr
Started on: 12/14/2002
Board: RPG Theory
On 12/14/2002 at 12:27am, Jack Spencer Jr wrote:
Genre and thinking outside of this particular box.
By genre I mean science fiction, fanatsy and horror, the so-called "genres" as labeled by some people in the mainstream. I guess the "action" genre can also be tossed onto this pile and then you'll have what most RPGs are "about."
Lately I have been trying like a madman to expand my own personal tastes, reading things outside of these genres and paying much, much more attention to movies that are not genre flicks. (last one, Stand By Me)
This is weird for me. I remember my friend talking about his English class in college and how the professor said she would not accept anything "genre", especially horror, because she would only accept stories that are "serious." I laughed at this with him at the time, but now I wonder.
This ties into all of the mainstream talk because the mainstream, or a portion of it, seems to consider genre stories to be somehow less than other efforts. Not serious. Leaving this value judgement aside for the moment, is it possible or practical to make an RPG that is of a "serious" nature by this standard? If so, what would it be? As much as I enjoyed Stand By Me or Catcher in the Rye or..whatever, I can see how to make an RPG out of such a concept.
I post this to get the wheels turning on the matter.
On 12/14/2002 at 8:36am, Ozymandias wrote:
Re: Genre and thinking outside of this particular box.
Jack Spencer Jr wrote:
This ties into all of the mainstream talk because the mainstream, or a portion of it, seems to consider genre stories to be somehow less than other efforts. Not serious. Leaving this value judgement aside for the moment, is it possible or practical to make an RPG that is of a "serious" nature by this standard? If so, what would it be? As much as I enjoyed Stand By Me or Catcher in the Rye or..whatever, I can see how to make an RPG out of such a concept.
I post this to get the wheels turning on the matter.
One thing to be careful of is not to confuse what the "mainstream" likes with what critics like. As an easy example take a look at the popularity of genre films (ie: Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, The Matrix). While these type of films may not be lauded by "serious" critics, they certainly enjoy a huge mainstream following.
(It should also be noted that what gets slapped with the genre label and disregarded is often times is more of a result who the publisher is than the actual content. A good work of literature that is published under a mainstream label by a publishing house will simply be regarded as literature. An excellect example of this would be the work of Kurt Vonnegut which while containing obvious science-fiction elements, isn't just disregarded as "genre" both because of it's quality and the fact it was published as mainstream lit rather than as genre work.)
In terms of creating an RPG like Catcher in the Rye or Stand By Me, there really is nothing to stop one from creating a story exploring the same the same themes within an existing "genre" rpg. One could even design a narrativist system specifically for dealing with those themes found within those books or even one set in a similar real world setting. But you can't really create "Catcher in the Rye the RPG" because the book is a single story about a specific group of characters.
On 12/14/2002 at 4:03pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Genre and thinking outside of this particular box.
Hello,
I suggest reviewing some of my comments about the term "genre" in my GNS essay, especially the part about how they change.
The problem you're facing, Jack, is that most of the time, it is used in an empty fashion - at best shorthand, at worst completely valueless.
Best,
Ron
On 12/14/2002 at 4:19pm, Alan wrote:
RE: Re: Genre and thinking outside of this particular box.
Jack Spencer Jr wrote: This ties into all of the mainstream talk because the mainstream, or a portion of it, seems to consider genre stories to be somehow less than other efforts. Not serious.
Not serious what? This is the question. What they mean is not serious by their standards. This is a conceit practiced by a sub-culture of fiction writers, mostly academic, to hide the fact that their prefered style is just another genre. They maintain special status in their own eyes by dismissing all other genre works outright.
Enough rant.
The literature genre usually involves a great deal of internal exploration. Its conflicts have little or no physical expression. Sharing internal conflicts of imaginary characters around a table makes a pretty sedate game, unless one externalizes the conflict in symbols, metaphor, or intense dramaturgy.
You could design "Catcher in the Rye RPG" but I wonder if it would have much audience. I recall in Ron's posts about RPG Mainstream, he observed that the real mainstream in US society is SF, Mystery, etc. These genres represent more than half the fiction books sold, and a lot of TV. "Literature" and "Mainstream" have only a small audience.
All that said, I think you could make an RPG that portrays internal conflict. I see two initial choice:
Metaphor or not to metaphor. An easy solution to the vagueness of imagined internal conflict, is to translate it into sybmols in a metaphoric lanscape - psychodrama.
On the other hand, you could design a game which supports the internal conflict of imaginary characters. I think some detailed rules on presentation of soliloquies, and the structure of such conflicts would support play. You might also consider the De Profundus approach - take advantage of the literary nature and play by letter or email.
On 12/14/2002 at 8:58pm, Jack Spencer Jr wrote:
RE: Genre and thinking outside of this particular box.
Ron Edwards wrote: The problem you're facing, Jack, is that most of the time, it is used in an empty fashion - at best shorthand, at worst completely valueless.
Perhaps, but this is probably the best-case scenerio for the use of the term. That is, as per the GNS essay, the term "Science Fiction," for example really doesn't tell us too much about what a game is about or like and we need to break it down into the sub-categories before we have a good idea. In this sense, the term "genre" is putting all of those subcategories into the larger box marked "science fiction" and lumping it with the other such genres as "Fanatsy" "Horror" and so on. In the GNS essay, the topic of genre comes what when understanding a particular property. In this case, we are excluding said properties from the discussion, so it works just fine.
Ozymandias wrote: As an easy example take a look at the popularity of genre films (ie: Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, The Matrix). While these type of films may not be lauded by "serious" critics, they certainly enjoy a huge mainstream following.
Point taken. Propbably one of the reasons why genres are so popular is because they press certain buttons rather hard. It can be argued if genres do this cheaply or not (a more airtight arguement can be made for individual pieces rather than a genre as a whole)
Alan wrote: This is a conceit practiced by a sub-culture of fiction writers, mostly academic, to hide the fact that their prefered style is just another genre. They maintain special status in their own eyes by dismissing all other genre works outright.
An excellent point, Alan. I wish we could give a name to this, but it would be as futile as any of the other genre name as per the GNS article. It is probably just as easy to define this by what it is not as to define it by what it is?
That said, I like the idea of a soliloquy mechanic to represent the internal conflict, which is a more important feature of such stories than most physical things. Structure is a little more difficult IMO because this suggest to me a means for resolving these conflicts. I don't think that is appropriate for such a game or for the sort of people who would play such a game. A means to present these conflicts is more useful than a means to resolve said conflicts. The conflicts tend to resolve themselves, for good or ill.
EDIT: This last sentence has struck a cord. I shall give this some thought.