I continue to pick up games when I find them Scored Top Secret & Star Frontiers for $2. Not bad. Browsing the Top Secret book, I noticed something. the Foreword mentions "the world of James Bond, Modesty Blaise, Jim Phelps, Derek Flint, John Steed and Emma Peel."

In other words, as D&D attempted to be every kind of fantasy at once, Top Secret attempted to be espionage. This expands on the concept of D&D fantasy or generic fantasy into other genre.

This, of course, is a great big "duh" but I was too close to really notice until recently. The concept was too much a part of my thinking to really analyze it. I had been looking for "the" movie about witches" or "the" movie about... whatever. I also bought into the whole crossover idea. The sort of thinking that would put all of the above listed characters in the same world in spite of differences in the stories themselves. e.g. the Bond of the movies is hardly recognizable as the Bond from the books. the kind of thinking that led me to thing a Star Wars/Star Trek/ Dr Who crossover would be a good idea. And apparently the same thinking that led to Aliens vs Predator and Freddy vs Jason.

Not that it necessarily means bad. Just that it is often better to regard these these separately than to develop genre stereotypes.

But, that's neither here nor there for this discussion. The question here is what use can this concept be put to? I mean, we could play intellectual snob and pick apart generic genres as being lacking in some way, but it more useful to discuss applications.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote:

The question here is what use can this concept be put to? I mean, we could play intellectual snob and pick apart generic genres as being lacking in some way, but it more useful to discuss applications.

It is all in the genes... Or in the memes as the case may be.

When creating a "generic" genre you are really involved in a massive crossbreeding experiment among the examples you have chosen in that genre. I would think that most attempts would be sterile or stillborn. However, sometimes this crossbreeding could result in something new. I wouldn't want to play D&D to totally emulate Tolkien, Vance, Leiber or Moorcock. D&D crossed these and created its own form of Fantasy.

For your example, break down a few of the elements (memes) that you could extract...

Star Wars - the Force, Rebels vs Empire
Star Trek - Galactic Federation, peaceful exploration of space
Doctor Who - Time Travel, Alien Invasion

If you put an emphasis on Rebels vs Empire and Galactic Federation, you might end up something like Blake's 7. Peaceful exploration of space and Time Travel would end up with something very different. Ultimately if you tried to combine all the elements, if you got anything that was anything at all, it would be something probably stunningly disimilar from its parents.

Thoughts?

Well, genre by definition (I think, haven't looked it up in several places) is by definition a super-set (one of the reasons it's found problematic here--and to a degree, rightfully so).

The espionage genere does comprise all those stories. The science fiction genre does too (in comon parlance, anyway).

So I don't think "generic genres" is really appropriate. Discussing the genre of hard-sci-fi is more specific than sci-fi. Discussing the genre of near-space-near-future-hard-sci-fi more still.

Top Secret wasn't really all that generic (Mercenaries, Spies, and Private Eyes, IIRC was more broad, Danger International--downright generic). so if you were trying to do The Avengers (movie, anyway--yes, I saw it) in Top Secret you might not find systemic support for all the tropes you wanted (not absurd enough?)

I guess that my comment is this: D&D is fantasy at a very high level of abstraction. Hero Wars, much less so (in terms of world). AD&D worked for it's world--but trying to "do tolkien" in it--which many people did--lead to ideas for other games.

-Marco

After some thought, I think I have an angle for what I'm getting at.

My ex-roommate was a fan of Howard Chaykin. One of his fav's was the violent, erotic vampire story Black Kiss. He oftened said that it answered the question on whether a vampire could survive on the small amount of blood in semen. That is, it answered this question for all vampire stories. Should there be a book or movie which would attempt to say otherwise, he would not have like that because Black Kiss had already answered this question with a "yes." A vampire can survive on this amount of blood.

Now, I've been toying with a vampire idea in which the blood is not a matter of survival. No vampire subsisting off of the blood of rats. The blood is a symptom of the vampire's desire for it's willing victem. The vampire needs complete submission from its prey, for it to willingly give up vital fluid. So a vampire does not need X pints of blod per day to survive, but needs a victem who willingly submits even in giving up their blood. Thus the "answer" in Black Kiss is irrelevant in this concept since a vampire does not need blood but the victem.

Now, if pressed, he would no-doubt admit that, of course this answer does not apply to all vampire stories. But I'm not as interested in trapping him with logic as noting the phenomenom in the first place. This sort of looking for authoritative common ground that can be applied to all vampires (or fantasy or sci-fi or super heroes, or spies...) which is the generic genre.

The notion you seem to be looking for is that of canon. Canon creates, by default, a universe of what is possible and impossible. The essential test for what makes up canon and what doesn't is non-conradiction. If a new story element contradicts canon then it cannot be part of the cannon, can it?

Once you accept Black Kiss canon it has an effect one's understanding of every vampire story after it. Otherwise it is simply an apocryphal story that has no relation to ones understanding of vampires.

The concept of canon probably has little relation to Gamist and Narrativist forms of gaming; I think it is the cornerstone of Simulationism, by definition.

One of the toughest things for us to work out in designing Multiverser was how to handle magic and gods.

Bear with me; this is relevant.

It was simple enough to say that the word "vampire" meant a creature with certain general characteristics, the specifics of which could be very different from one universe to another (in which they existed at all). One superb example is in Blade, the young vampires use high-potency sunscreen to prevent themselves from being destroyed by the sun, because in that world the reason vampires can't stand the sun is the UV radiation. That's so outside the tradition of vampire mythology that I'd have no problem saying that in some other world vampires can't stand the sun because they can't stand in the Light of God that it represents, and so are destroyed--sunscreen would be completely ineffective. That doesn't negate the fact that in Blade's world, UPF-100 is proof against destruction by sunlight for vampires.

Similarly, Steampunk technology doesn't always make complete sense by scientific rules, but it's simple enough to assume that the creators of such devices have come to understand some principles of science and technology that escaped the notice of our world.

The problem with magic and the gods is that by definition, these things aren't part of the world; they're power from beyond the universe. That meant either magic and gods were terribly finite things (which all the stories deny) limited to one world, or there was some sort of reality outside all the universes which had to be consistent with itself, universal in a broader sense, and consistent with all the stories told about it.

We managed to create a framework for this, which enables every conception of God to be true in some way, maintains a single supernatural realm with varying manifestations, and keeps magic something outside the universe, but it was a lot of thought and effort to get it there.

The problem of course is that you have three options in designing a game:

• You define canon for the game system, and expect all users to adhere to it.• You give some suggestions and let your users define canon for the game world.• You allow it to be entirely open and self-contradictory, and offer some way to deal with the contradictions.

We did the third. It's probably the hardest way to go.

--M. J. Young

Ah, canon. That's probably the word I need. Thank you, Mark.

Mark Johnson wrote: The concept of canon probably has little relation to Gamist and Narrativist forms of gaming; I think it is the cornerstone of Simulationism, by definition.

dictionary.com wrote: a rule or especially body of rules or principles generally established as valid and fundamental in a field or art or philosophy: "the neoclassical canon"; "canons of polite society"

genre:

A category of artistic composition, as in music or literature, marked by a distinctive style, form, or content:...

M. J. Young wrote: It was simple enough to say that the word "vampire" meant a creature with certain general characteristics, the specifics of which could be very different from one universe to another (in which they existed at all). One superb example is in Blade, the young vampires use high-potency sunscreen to prevent themselves from being destroyed by the sun, because in that world the reason vampires can't stand the sun is the UV radiation. That's so outside the tradition of vampire mythology that I'd have no problem saying that in some other world vampires can't stand the sun because they can't stand in the Light of God that it represents, and so are destroyed--sunscreen would be completely ineffective. That doesn't negate the fact that in Blade's world, UPF-100 is proof against destruction by sunlight for vampires.

M. J. Young wrote:
The problem with magic and the gods is that by definition, these things aren't part of the world; they're power from beyond the universe. That meant either magic and gods were terribly finite things (which all the stories deny) limited to one world, or there was some sort of reality outside all the universes which had to be consistent with itself, universal in a broader sense, and consistent with all the stories told about it.

M. J. Young wrote:
The problem of course is that you have three options in designing a game:

• You define canon for the game system, and expect all users to adhere to it.
• You give some suggestions and let your users define canon for the game world.
• You allow it to be entirely open and self-contradictory, and offer some way to deal with the contradictions.


We did the third. It's probably the hardest way to go.

kamikaze wrote: That's a very provincial assertion. That's your game's canon or your own beliefs, perhaps, but most magical systems--in the real world, in fiction, and in games--operate on the rules of the universe. They are considered completely natural by practitioners; the only people who think magic is supernatural are ill-educated non-practitioners. "Supernatural" is a nonsensical term to apply to anything real--if it works, it's natural. Judeo-christian mythology about their god is very idiosyncratic. "Real" gods live and operate in the universe, usually in a remote part of it, and they use the rules of the universe to accomplish their goals, and are willing and able to directly appear and intervene. Our world is only a small part of the universe. The obsession with being "infinite" is also a judeo-christian quirk, which doesn't exist in any other system I'm familiar with. It's just a "my god can beat up your god, INFINITY!" schoolyard argument.

kamikaze wrote: This shows the truth here: there is no such thing as a "genre". Each work stands alone, and has its own premises.

kamikaze wrote: The whole "sunlight destroys vampires" idea is derived from one source: Murnau's _Nosferatu_. It's not found in original vampire mythologies. Vampires weren't powerful in sunlight, but Dracula, for example, could walk by day, with no more power than a mortal man. The only way to destroy a historical vampire was to drive a stake through its heart or behead it. Almost all modern vampire fiction has accepted the sunlight allergy as part of its canon by ripping off Murnau's movie, directly or indirectly, rather than doing research.

The problem with magic and the gods is that by definition, these things aren't part of the world; they're power from beyond the universe.

To get back to the oprriginal question-

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: But, that's neither here nor there for this discussion. The question here is what use can this concept be put to? I mean, we could play intellectual snob and pick apart generic genres as being lacking in some way, but it more useful to discuss applications.

simon_hibbs wrote: There is still a tradeoff though. Games with a broad target genre are nowadays up against many games with similar goals, yet also potentialy have a broad audience. Narrowly focused games can differentiate themselves much more, but have a more limited appeal. Narrower games do have an advantage though, because it's easier for them to offer something truly novel, that other games don't have. Even a game with broad genre goals must differentiate itself somehow, and I think that's why even games capable of broad genre application usualy come with a fairly well developed setting these days.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote:

simon_hibbs wrote: There is still a tradeoff though. Games with a broad target genre are nowadays up against many games with similar goals, yet also potentialy have a broad audience.

Consider a big ol pie chart which represents people interested in Fantasy games. This breaks down into wedges for Heroic fantasy, epic fantasy, etc. The wedge for a generic fantasy game, some would think would be the entire pie but in reality it is only a wedge of its own. These wedges overlap a bit, even the generic one.

Mark Johnson wrote: It is all in the genes... Or in the memes as the case may be.?

John Kim wrote: I would look at it a little differently. Rather than "broad" genres, I would refer to works like D&D as being "hybrid" genres. . .

kamikaze wrote: Since each mythology has a completely different canon, there's no way to make a common system for them.

simon_hibbs wrote: In the same way early editions of D&D purported to let you run games that cut across the gamut of swords and sorcery, but realy only supported dungeon bashing.

John Kim wrote: I would look at it a little differently. Rather than "broad" genres, I would refer to works like D&D as being "hybrid" genres.

Consider two primary influences on D&D: the genre of swords & sorcery as exemplified by R.E. Howard's Conan stories; and the genre of high fantasy as exemplified by J.R.R. Tolkien. D&D does not take all of these genres -- it cannot since they are contradictory on many points (like the nature of wizards, for example). Instead, it takes bits from each of them and puts them together. The result is a genre quite distinct from either, not a neutral midpoint between the two.

I'd agree with Simon. GURPS has only a couple of published fantasy worlds, and no real way to create a world that does magic, for instance, in any way but the one that they suggest. Hero System, by comparison, allows for a very wide customization of how magic and other things work, and by comparison is much, much more generic. In fact, I'd call GURPS modular, and not really all that generic at all.

Mike