Down in the Theory Forum Ron made the claim that Genre is not a very useful term when it comes to RPGs. I'd like to explore this assertion.

When someone asks me where I fall on the GNS spectrum I tell them that during actual play the story is what's most important to me so in that sense I must be a Narrativist. However, when it comes to rule design I tell people that I'm a Genre Simulationist.

Let me explain what that means. I don't care what would be 'realistic' or even what is 'believable.' What I DO care about is that the rules support, encourage, reward and in extreme cases enforce behaviors that accord with a given genre. The rules for death are different in a swashbuckling story than they are in a horror story. People in a swashbuckling story act with fearlessness and reckless abandon while people in a horror story spend a lot of time running and screaming and dying. Several strikes with a blade in a swashbuckling story are mere nicks, while a single strike is deadly in a Horror story... and so on.

Examples:

Sorcerer in my opinion is a good example of 'genre simulationism'? Why? Because it encourages, rewards and enforces behaviors consistent with the genre on which it is based. In the general sense Sorcerer is a Horror game but it's rules in my opinion are useless in terms of say, a Slasher Flick, so it can't be a Horror game in general. No, Sorcerer simulates a SUBSET of the Horror genre called a Faust. All of Sorcerer rules are geared towards encouraging Faustian behavior.

In the Sorcerer's Soul there is an example scenario that Ron outlines as meant to be swashbuckling in nature with a lot of 'have at yous' and so on. I take a very skeptical view of this scenario because there's NOTHING in the Sorcerer rule set to encourage, reward or enforce the behaviors seen in the swashbuckling genre. Simply SAYING that the game is part of the swashbuckling genre is not enough in my opinion. The rules have to back up the genre, otherwise there's nothing keeping player behavior consistent with behaviors seen in the genre.

7th Sea on the other hand is BRILLANT at encouraging, rewarding and enforcing the behaviors seen in the swashbuckling litterature. The simplest example is the Drama Die, the wittier your repartee and the flashy your moves the more you are rewarded and the more effective you can be.

So now what if I want a Faustian Swashbuckling game you say? Well, I'm either going to have to adapt the rules of 7th Sea to Sorcerer or vice versa or create a new game. This is PRECISELY why I feel that game design is limitless. There is an infinite combinations of genres. Obviously some work together better than others.

Take a look at Deadlands. Deadlands is a Horror Western. So while I see rules for High Noon style duels, I ALSO see rules for FEAR. Even better while guns can be deadly they're nothing compared to what some of the supernatural creatures can do to you.

It would not be enough simply to say here are one set of rules for Westerns and one set of rules for Horror and then hope they work in accordance with each other. When you blend the two together you're going to get a different shade of each and so you need a seperate set of rules that accomplish that blending. This is why I feel that picking up a copy of GURPS and then a copy of GURPS Westerns and GURPS Horror won't work, even though they're the same system. They haven't been designed to color each other correctly.

So, does any of this make sense and how do you feel about it? Where does Genre come into the game design process for you?

Jesse

Hey there,

In the interests of clarity ... my claim is that "genre" is not very useful as a term. Not that it is entirely useless.

As far as I can tell, "genre" is composed of setting elements, plot elements, character elements, and premise elements together, such that by "genre" we are SOMEWHAT situated in what to expect. Or in role-playing terms, what to do.

The problem is that genres are continually being deconstructed, re-formed, with elements of one being re-combined with others. This is occurring as a non-planned or non-managed historical phenomenon.

To call Red River a western is accurate; to call Unforgiven a western is accurate. But "western" means entirely different things for each of these movies.

Therefore when someone tells me that a game (or story, or whatever) is of a certain genre, I ask a few more questions - and sooner or later, I get real answers in terms of Character, Setting, Situation, or Premise. Only then do I have that "what to do" or "what it is" established.

I'm OK with using genres as uber-categories, but their mutability makes them difficult, both as descriptors or design considerations.

Furthermore, staying "in" genre has a tendency to become self-referential and self-parody (compare Die Hard and Pretty Woman with Con Air and Sleepless in Seattle, respectively). Moving "out of" genre (or deconstructing it) has a tendency to create new genre - which again leads me to think that the term is a fine descriptive label for what IS or has been done, but not much help in terms of what TO DO or what can be done.

Best,
Ron

Giving a thought off the cuff:

Genre seems to be a collection of loose conventions. For the most part, this is so much fluff and tissue paper. Such as, magic, elves, and other such fixtures of the fantasy genre.

But in the end it tells you very little about what the property (book game etc) is all about.

It's surface. Superficial. It's like critics who dislike action or sci-fi movies assuming action or sci-fi movie fans will like a movie simply based on the genre. We all know that such a movie can still be disappointing.

I've always been a fan of "genre" because it gives you an immediate frame of reference (as a designer, not just a consumer). If you know the genre, you know what conventions to re-inforce (if you want to do it that way) or what conventions to deconstruct (if you want to do it that way).

I'm pretty durn tired of the whole "thinking outside of the box" metaphor, but there's something to it...just keep the box in your field of vision. It's a constraint...and constraints (for me, ahem) seem to inspire more than that nebulous freedom that many people espouse.

- J

Thought I'd at in two bits..

All semantics aside, I'd like to look at genre (briefly) from the consumer angle.

Whether your consumers are hardcore gamers, or new initiates, they have an idea what they want. There is generally a reason they went to thier FLGS in the first place. Catchy covers and clerk pushes aside, they usually say to themselves "Hey let's go pick up a horror game" "Let's see if there are any new wargames" "Let's find something totally different"

So in my opinion, from a design standpoint.. write what you feel. Create what's in your head. Then "package" it by Genre. I mean, if I had written V:tM I would have personally felt that it wasn't a "horror" game, and I would have felt that it wasn't neccessarily die hard "goth" but I damn sure would have marketed it that way. I'm working on a game right now that I present as "Small Town Horror" but if you ever play with me as a GM it's gonna be "Dark Mystery" every time. (well almost every time, someone's writing up a kick ass blood n' guts expansion already). Genre, IMHO, is merely a matter of which section you choose to put that Sublime CD in. Reggae? Rock? Punk? Alternative?

T

On 2001-08-22 14:32, Ron Edwards wrote:

I'm OK with using genres as uber-categories, but their mutability makes them difficult, both as descriptors or design considerations.

I agree with Jesse: a game's mechanics are relevant to the genre. That's why universal games (our own JAGS included) have such a hard time with things like the Superhero genre. Sure: there are many different takes on what a superhero is (from Mystery Men to Superman ... and Watchment) but almost no matter how you slice it you've got paradoxical situations to deal with.

The trick is to try to make the chargen/combat "economy" support the kinds of characters and situations you want in the game.

-Marco

Marco,

The general principle you've stated is shared or at least understood by nearly everyone who posts at the Forge: "system does matter." The point at issue is not this principle but rather the use of the term genre in helping to focus system design.

My claim is that the key variables are, and always are:
Character, Premise, Setting, Situation, and Color. System design relies on these, I agree.

Now, in many cases, a given "genre" label will convey to a close group of people a fairly tight combination of values for these variables.

However, the same genre label loses its power to inform as you add more people to the mix, especially since most labels have switched meanings radically more than once. And even more importantly, combinations of values for the key variables may be arrived at, and be perfectly functional, even when they do not correspond to any recognized genre label.

Therefore: my call is that genre terminology is occasionally useful, but not reliable, and certainly not coherent enough to rely upon as a design principle.

In my experience, being told a genre label is not enough. It always has to get clarified, to the level of the key variables (often via examples), before people start understanding.

Superheroes are an excellent example - saying "superhero" alone is a lousy way to define a role-playing context, because you'll get Wolverine from 1992, Batman from 1985, Spider-Man from 1964, and the Maxx, which I consider to be a non-functional combination. I disagree with you that the range of "superhero" is functional without further clarification, through examples, which narrows down the range in terms of Character, Premise, Situation, Setting, and Color - and once you have those, either play or system design can fly wonderfully.

Best,
Ron

I read the thread carefully and I see your point. You distilled it nicely:

> My claim is that the key variables are, and always are:
> Character, Premise, Setting, Situation, and Color.

(and you said, as I understand, paraphrasing it) that Genre is unreliable.

I won't disagree that Genre is (as pointed out with superheroes) pretty unreliable. But, for the sake of argument look at it this way:

Given your five atributes you define a point somewhere on the graph of all possible roleplaying games. Now, that point will be ascribed one or more genres (someone might describe it as, say, 'pulp' which might also fall on the outside edge of superhero and within mystery/adventure fiction).

Now, those genres are *arbitrary* as to their boundaries (I saw Unbreakable last night and there's some discussion as to whether it's a 'real' superhero movie). But there's no question in most people's minds about X-Men.

Now, what I'm getting at is this: if you discount Genre in your System design you risk short-changing your game fiction. In GURPS Supers I had a high-flying four-color superhero brought down by an agent's blaster. I think most people would see that as a 'genre-foul.'

Genere may be an ill-defined place to start (I agree) but I think as sort of a bottom-up check-point it's ignored at peril. Put another way: your five elements (which I think are very well considered) add up to Genre. A Genre check can be useful after all is said and done.

Example: Unbreakable is indeed a superhero movie: the characters wear costumes, use code-names, display paranormal abilities, and fight crime in ways the ordinary forces can't. Despite sharing almost nothing with the traditional look and feel of the superhero genre you can do the check and decide that it matches most of the plot-points of the genre.

Finally: I fully realize that the flaw with using genre is that people won't agree. I'm talking about employing it as a safety against things that people who are *moderately* close together in point of view would agree should/shouldn't be in the game.

-Marco

Marco,

OK, that's fair. I especially see your point if it's hybridized with the one made above, that genre is often powerful as a SELLING point.

Thanks for considering the matter carefully with me (and everyone).

Best,
Ron