Prescriptive vs. Descriptive Genre

[Warp9]

The first time I came upon the concept of "prescriptive" genre was several years ago. A friend told me that Shadowrun was a bad game because it broke the rules of genre (elves shouldn't have machine guns). I was assuming that he thought it was a bad game because he didn't like the system, and it a surprise to hear about the genre issue.

Up until that time I assumed that genre was more of a descriptive concept than a prescriptive concept. I thought genre was an easy way to classify something for descriptive purposes rather than a directive telling us how something ought to behave. Over the years, I've noticed a number of examples of prescriptive genre--often relating to super-hero games.

I don't really get "prescriptive genre" and would like to hear from those of you who understand the concept better than I.

[Mutant for Hire]

Genre can be used descriptively and prescriptively. The problem your friend had was that they were treating Shadowrun as a strictly fantasy game. If you treat it as stricty fantasy, it breaks the rules of genre.

It's really a matter of genre conventions. Within a specific type of genre, there are various rules. Superhero comic books have heroes and villains with funky costumes and death traps and strange powers and all of that stuff. Prescriptive genre is a matter of following genre conventions.

Shadowrun was an experiment in the deliberate breaking of genre conventions. That any fantasy world would have at best a medival state of technology. But you should point out to your friend that there is a whole class of fantasy called modern fantasy which fills up space on the bookstores which does in fact have elves with machine guns and all of that. Shadowrun fits nicely into the spectrum of this new genre.

[allen]

Originally posted by Warp9
Over the years, I've noticed a number of examples of prescriptive genre--often relating to super-hero games.


That's interesting... one of the often-cited hallmarks of superhero comics is its total (gleeful?) disregard of genre conventions/boundaries... Some examples off the top of my head:

Conan the Barbarian and Spider-Man teaming up against Kualan Ganth (sp?)

The Executioner (from Thor) holding off the hordes of Hel with two M-16s. (In fact the whole Walt Simonson run of Thor from the eighties is a good example.)

The X-men fighting Dracula.

Adam Strange teaming up with the JLA.

Numerous team line-ups... The Avengers? At times, it has a Norse God, an Olympian God, a super-soldier created via better-living and science, a guy in powered armor, an android, and numerous other members borrowed from/inspired by the fantasy, sci-fi, pulp genres... not to mention the villains: Loki, Kang the Conquerer, Baron Zemo, the Supreme Intelligence, etc.

[Warp9]

Originally posted by Mutant for Hire
Genre can be used descriptively and prescriptively. The problem your friend had was that they were treating Shadowrun as a strictly fantasy game. If you treat it as stricty fantasy, it breaks the rules of genre.

It's really a matter of genre conventions. Within a specific type of genre, there are various rules. Superhero comic books have heroes and villains with funky costumes and death traps and strange powers and all of that stuff. Prescriptive genre is a matter of following genre conventions.

Shadowrun was an experiment in the deliberate breaking of genre conventions. That any fantasy world would have at best a medival state of technology. But you should point out to your friend that there is a whole class of fantasy called modern fantasy which fills up space on the bookstores which does in fact have elves with machine guns and all of that. Shadowrun fits nicely into the spectrum of this new genre.

Thank you for the help on the Shadowrun thing. . . .

On the matter of "genre conventions," why would it be important to follow them? (I'm not talking to anybody specific here, I'm just asking a question)

I'm not Stan Lee or Tolkien, why should I want to be bound by conventions that they (and others like them) created? Now I'm not saying that I don't want to make use of some of their ideas--they have made many great contributions. But IMO there is a difference between using some of what they did in my own creative work, and getting bound/limited by what others have already done.

I understand making use of the ideas of others, Newton himself said that he only got as far as he did because he was "able to stand on the shoulders of giants." But I do not understand why anyone would feel the need to be bound/limited by genre conventions--this issue is what I'm looking to have explained to me.

[Warp9]

Originally posted by allen
That's interesting... one of the often-cited hallmarks of superhero comics is its total (gleeful?) disregard of genre conventions/boundaries...


You may be right about the genre thing not relating to super-hero stuff--if I really understood genre I wouldn't have to ask these questions about it.
However, it was my (perhaps inaccurate) understanding that comic-books do involve some sort of genre.

[Mutant for Hire]

Originally posted by allen
That's interesting... one of the often-cited hallmarks of superhero comics is its total (gleeful?) disregard of genre conventions/boundaries... Some examples off the top of my head:

*range of characters found in superhero comics deleted*

Having mythological, technological and magical characters, along with people from martial arts genres. No, the convetions of the superhero genre are numerous. The codenames. The costumes. Supertechnology that gets invented and for the most part forgotten about. For the most part, the behavior of these types tend to fall heavily within convention in Marvel/DC at the very least.

[Lord Mhoram]

Originally posted by Warp9

I'm not Stan Lee or Tolkien, why should I want to be bound by conventions that they (and others like them) created?

But I do not understand why anyone would feel the need to be bound/limited by genre conventions--this issue is what I'm looking to have explained to me.

[I have a tendancy to have an "from on high" tone to what I write- the following is all IMO]

I think it comes down to what the person in question is hoping to get out of the game. I love martial arts movies, I take RL martial arts, I love to play martial artists. If someone said they were going to run a Ninja Hero game I come to play with certain expectations. I expect to be able to beat up hordes of nonimportant npcs. I expect a _lot_ of combat. I expect to hear goofy (or even non goofy) philosphising in character. That is implied in the unspoken contract to run a "Ninja Hero" game.

If someone were to run a swashbuckling game, but penalized eveyone when they did something grandstanding or extreme (like swinging on chandeliers) with the comment "that sort of stuff leaves you open and you could get killed" what is the point of swashbuckling.

Genre conventions are there as a shorthand for laying out the rules of the world. If you say "Four color supers" you expect few shades of gray, colorful costumes, few deaths. You don't have to explain it. If you say classic gaming fantasy, the players know what to expect.

Some who is being "bound" by genre conventions may just be responding to the "break" in the world from thier point of view. If the GM said classsic high fantasy, and when play started the elves were are evil and ugly and swordsmen beat wizards all the time, the player might go "Huh?" because it was not what was expected, or to his point of view, what was promised. In that respect, genre conventions could be house rules of the collecive unconcious, that everyone knows.

I always find it useful to discuss tone and syle with the players before hand so those kind of things don't come up.

Shadowrun was not classic fantasy, and someone who expected to be was missing the point. Genrebreaking can be fun, but it should be on purpose or for a reason. I remember reading about an oneshot western game where they ended up fighting a vampire. The players (and thus the characters) had no clue, and missed things that would have been obvious to a vampire hunter game. All in fun, and works great in short runs or oneshots. It can be troublesome in an ongoing campaign, because the players may not know where they stand.

Starting a game with the disclaimer that genre conventions out to be ignored should help in those situations where you are running an original game, and don't want that getting in the way, and it also informs the players not to make decisions based on the unwritten rules of those conventions.

Anyway that is my thoughts on the matter. Hope I helped shine light rather than muddy the water. :-)

[Keneton]

You are not bound by your skeleton, you are supported by it. Surely writers of Greek Tragedy were not bound by its elements, they used it to create a story.

Take or leave wht you like. A great example of this is Astro City. The story is the city bound by comcbook convention. I like the stuff and intend to use it without feeling trapped. In fact it is liberating to have a set of unspoken rules that make stories like this fun.
:)

[Warp9]

Originally posted by Lord Mhoram
[I have a tendancy to have an "from on high" tone to what I write- the following is all IMO]

I think it comes down to what the person in question is hoping to get out of the game. I love martial arts movies, I take RL martial arts, I love to play martial artists. If someone said they were going to run a Ninja Hero game I come to play with certain expectations. I expect to be able to beat up hordes of nonimportant npcs. I expect a _lot_ of combat. I expect to hear goofy (or even non goofy) philosphising in character. That is implied in the unspoken contract to run a "Ninja Hero" game.

If someone were to run a swashbuckling game, but penalized eveyone when they did something grandstanding or extreme (like swinging on chandeliers) with the comment "that sort of stuff leaves you open and you could get killed" what is the point of swashbuckling.

Genre conventions are there as a shorthand for laying out the rules of the world. If you say "Four color supers" you expect few shades of gray, colorful costumes, few deaths. You don't have to explain it. If you say classic gaming fantasy, the players know what to expect.


Some interesting and valid points.

If I use genre in a descriptive sense, then in order to be consistent with my description, I should set up my world accordingly. Descriptive genre thus leads to some prescription.

The concept of the swashbuckling game is also interesting because it emphasizes the fact that genre relates not only to the world at large, but to the way that characters interact with that world.

Definitely things to think about. . . .

[Warp9]

Originally posted by Keneton
You are not bound by your skeleton, you are supported by it. Surely writers of Greek Tragedy were not bound by its elements, they used it to create a story.

Take or leave wht you like. A great example of this is Astro City. The story is the city bound by comcbook convention. I like the stuff and intend to use it without feeling trapped. In fact it is liberating to have a set of unspoken rules that make stories like this fun.
:)

I would be hard pressed to disagree with the merits of having a skeleton (although I sometimes think that life as a jelly-fish might be fun).

I agree completely that a story needs some sort of inner-structure (a skeleton), however, I feel that an author can create a skeleton the same way he creates a story. It would be expected that the artist would draw from elements of past experience in both cases, but at the same time, both cases could involve some original insight in the on the part of the author.

As long as genre works as a tool and doesn't make anybody feel "trapped," I see no problem with it.

[Pol Rua]

By Allston's definitions, I am a Genre Fiend.
In fact, I am king-boss Genre Fiend.

If I'm playing Fantasy, I wanna play some Fantasy.
If I'm playing Cyberpunk, I wanna play some Cyberpunk.
And if I play Shadowrun, I want Fantasy Genre Elements in a Cyberpunk Setting.

I have run Superhero Games many times for people who don't dig the genre. And I can tell you that despite the fact that superheroes can cross genres, when you're running a Champions game featuring....

A nonpowered gun nut with a million high tech guns.
A murderous wolf-man hybird with supersenses and big claws.
A Cyborg Robot thingy with inbuilt rocketlaunchers.
A Supernatural Ninja guy whose only loyalty is to himself.
A mysterious homeless guy whose superpower is a kind of situational invisibility (Kinda like Plain Jane).

You realise that yup, these folks don't want to play superheroes.

When you start fielding responses like:
I don't want to wear a stupid costume.
I don't want to have a stupid codename.
I don't want to have any stupid superpowers.
Do I have to be a good guy?
Can I kill people?

You realise that these guys are not interested in the genre. Basically, it's like art. Sure, you wanna push yourself to create something new and unique and beautiful, but you have to have a knowledge of your craft to build upon.


__________________________________________________
Pol.

[Superskrull]

Originally posted by Pol Rua
A nonpowered gun nut with a million high tech guns.
A murderous wolf-man hybird with supersenses and big claws.
A Cyborg Robot thingy with inbuilt rocketlaunchers.
A Supernatural Ninja guy whose only loyalty is to himself.
A mysterious homeless guy whose superpower is a kind of situational invisibility (Kinda like Plain Jane).

You realise that yup, these folks don't want to play superheroes.

When you start fielding responses like:
I don't want to wear a stupid costume.
I don't want to have a stupid codename.
I don't want to have any stupid superpowers.
Do I have to be a good guy?
Can I kill people?

Man, that's familiar. Until I fell in with my current group, I had to field whackos like the guy who wanted a total cybernetic conversion Predator or the werewolf biker my best friend wanted to play. My friend was a pretty good guy but he despised most superheroes except the Tick. Well, and he actually thought Mr Terrific was a pretty neat concept when he heard about him. Anyway, I had to give up my hopes of 4-color fun and wound up running a bizarre cross-genre game where the players trusted no one but themselves. I dipped into my personal reservoir of evil impulses to scare the hell out of them when they ran into the "villains" of the piece. It was fun to watch them hunt down bad guys out of injured pride or sense of personal vengeance. Got a lot of nasty stuff out of my system too. Keeps me from shading too dark in my current games.

[Warp9]

Originally posted by Pol Rua


I have run Superhero Games many times for people who don't dig the genre. And I can tell you that despite the fact that superheroes can cross genres, when you're running a Champions game featuring....

A nonpowered gun nut with a million high tech guns.
A murderous wolf-man hybird with supersenses and big claws.
A Cyborg Robot thingy with inbuilt rocketlaunchers.
A Supernatural Ninja guy whose only loyalty is to himself.
A mysterious homeless guy whose superpower is a kind of situational invisibility (Kinda like Plain Jane).

You realise that yup, these folks don't want to play superheroes.

When you start fielding responses like:
I don't want to wear a stupid costume.
I don't want to have a stupid codename.
I don't want to have any stupid superpowers.
Do I have to be a good guy?
Can I kill people?

You realise that these guys are not interested in the genre. Basically, it's like art. Sure, you wanna push yourself to create something new and unique and beautiful, but you have to have a knowledge of your craft to build upon.

__________________________________________________
Pol.

I have a question about your analogy to art. You state that: "you have to have a knowledge of your craft to build upon."

I just don't fully understand its relation to your earlier statements. Above in your example, you conclude "that these guys are not interested in the genre," but isn't that different from saying that they don't have a knowledge of the genre?

If they do in fact have a knowledge of the genre, but simply choose to go in a different direction, isn't that a valid decision?

[Pol Rua]

I have a question about your analogy to art. You state that: "you have to have a knowledge of your craft to build upon." I just don't fully understand its relation to your earlier statements. Above in your example, you conclude "that these guys are not interested in the genre," but isn't that different from saying that they don't have a knowledge of the genre? If they do in fact have a knowledge of the genre, but simply choose to go in a different direction, isn't that a valid decision?

I plead typing faster than I think.
Yes, it is valid to say that 'I hate superheroes. They suck' and play Cyberpunk or Feng Shui or Twilight 2000 or hell, Bunnies and Burrows.
Because it's a game, and the goal is to have fun.
If you can't have fun in tights and a cape, p'raps 4-colour superheroics isn't your cup of tea. fair enough.
I think, if you're going to play a game which HAS a genre, it's important to get at least the basics of your genre. However, like art, there is a difference between consciously choosing to break the rules of your craft a la Picasso, and using hacklines and groundmist to cover up your lack of craft a la Liefeld.
If you just wanna kill stuff, and you can enjoy that, that's cool. As I said, have fun.

But I yam Genre Fiend. And I need a snack with Genre.
Most of the anecdotal stuff was just me griping.


Pol.

[Warp9]

Originally posted by Pol Rua
I plead typing faster than I think.
Yes, it is valid to say that 'I hate superheroes. They suck' and play Cyberpunk or Feng Shui or Twilight 2000 or hell, Bunnies and Burrows.
Because it's a game, and the goal is to have fun.
If you can't have fun in tights and a cape, p'raps 4-colour superheroics isn't your cup of tea. fair enough.
I think, if you're going to play a game which HAS a genre, it's important to get at least the basics of your genre. However, like art, there is a difference between consciously choosing to break the rules of your craft a la Picasso, and using hacklines and groundmist to cover up your lack of craft a la Liefeld.
If you just wanna kill stuff, and you can enjoy that, that's cool. As I said, have fun.

But I yam Genre Fiend. And I need a snack with Genre.
Most of the anecdotal stuff was just me griping.


Pol.

Thank you for your input, I was/am looking for the insights of a "Genre Fiend."

I agree with most (or all) of what you said. But I am still thinking that there is a difference between using your past experiences to your advantage, and being limited by them.

I've never had a great deal of respect for "tradition" for tradition's sake, or doing things the "conventional way" purely out of respect for the conventional. And I feel that is what following genre conventions amounts to. But I may be wrong.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Originally posted by Warp9
I've never had a great deal of respect for "tradition" for tradition's sake, or doing things the "conventional way" purely out of respect for the conventional. And I feel that is what following genre conventions amounts to. But I may be wrong. Speaking as one who also has little respect for "tradition for tradition's sake," I respectfully submit that you seem to me to be wrong in this case. :) Specifically, I think you may be misinterpreting the reasons why one would (or would not) choose to follow them.

There is nothing holy or magical about genre conventions; there's nothing wrong with running a game that breaks them, crosses them, or ignores them completely. What is "wrong" is letting your players believe you're running a game that includes classic genre conventions, and then not using them. It's wrong only because it violates the unspoken contract as to what they came to do.

For example, I often say that I don't care much for Cyberpunk games. However, that is actually a verbal shorthand that's a little misleading. In truth, what I don't like is any setting in which the world is grim and depressing, and the PCs are doing little or nothing to make the world a better place. I associate that worldview primarily with Cyberpunk and other kinds of Dark Future or Post-Holocaust settings.

Now, if someone said to me, "I'm going to run a Champions game," then I would probably play. If he or she goes no further, I'm going to assume they mean a mainstream, standard supers Champions game where things like costumes, secret identities, and fighting for justice are a given.

If the world actually turned out to be a post-holocaust place where normal humans feared everyone with superpowers, and the supers and normals alike were just trying to survive day to day, then I wouldn't enjoy it, and would feel misled. There are certain assumptions that go along with running a game in a certain genre, unless you make it clear that they don't..

That's the key. If the GM said up front that it was really going to be more like a Post-Holocaust game where the PCs just happened to have superpowers, then I would know I wouldn't enjoy it, and wouldn't participate. There's nothing wrong with have superpowered characters in a post-holocaust world just because it's not a typical Supers world... but if its atypical nature isn't made clear to the players, then they may feel misled.

Setting expectations appropriately is the purpose of genre conventions.

From another angle, genre conventions aren't just traditions. In a sense, they're the definitions of the genre. To draw an analogy...

We all know more or less what a car is. It's a combustion-engine driven, 4-wheeled vehicle that carries passengers and is controlled by a single driver, etc. In a sense, these defining characteristics are the car's "genre conventions." You can vary them a bit and still stay within the "car" category, but if you vary them too much, you're no longer talking about a car. (You're now talking about a truck, or an SUV, or a skateboard, or something, depending on what you varied.) A car doesn't have these things because it's traditional... it has these things because they're the defining elements of being a car. There's nothing wrong with not wanting a car, and wanting a truck, a skateboard, or some other contraption of your own invention instead. But that's what it becomes once you deviate enough from the car design... it becomes something else, not a car.

Likewise, various genres have defining characteristics. Once you vary from them enough, you are -- literally by definition -- no longer in the genre you started with. You're now in a different genre, some kind of hybrid genre, or a new genre of your own devising.

There's nothing wrong with changing the elements of, say, high fantasy and doing something different. But once you've changed them enough, it isn't high fantasy anymore, and people expecting it to still be high fantasy will be disappointed. :)

[Pol Rua]

I've never had a great deal of respect for "tradition" for tradition's sake, or doing things the "conventional way" purely out of respect for the conventional. And I feel that is what following genre conventions amounts to. But I may be wrong.

Okay, firstly, it's not 'tradition for tradition's sake'.
And you can respect the conventional, without doing things the conventional way.
And none of these things have to do with following genre conventions.
Lemme 'splain...

no, s'too complex... lemme sum up.

Role-Playing games are interactive, group stories. Semiotically, when you say 'Superhero' Game, 'Cyberpunk' Game or 'Hard-Boiled Private Eye' Game, you are establishing a series of expectations (Yes...) and also a set of unwritten rules... something for the players to hang their imaginary hats on.
Roleplaying for the most part, happens inside the brain, in the imagination. Using conventions is one way to make sure that the pictures in everyone's brains can interact.
No situation can cover all the information. You end up in a weird never-ending spiral of infinitely replicating detail... a mandelbrot set of intricacy. This is where generalisations and labels come in handy. They work as a kind of cognitive shorthand.
That way, rather than saying it's a 23 minutes past five a.m. in 1923 on x street in x city with cars and trucks and hats and dogs and the collars on the dogs and the fleas on the dogs and lalalalalala into infinity. Just telling someone that it's a 1920's era game will allow them to make the links in their own mind.
One's read F.Scott Fitzgrald. One's a jazz fan. One's seen a movie set in the period. Anther's a fan of the fashion. Everyone has an idea of what constitutes 'The 20's'. Same with genre.
It's an aid to the GM and players which assists them in sharing 'head space'.
This is where my art analogy comes from. It's cool to ignore the basic principles of what you're doing, but it's for more effective to do it knowingly and consciously than to do so out of ignorance. For example, if you're reading a novel set in a fantasy world with a pseudo-mediaeval setting, and someone' s watching TV, that can be a very effective 'shock' addition. "Whoa! What's that about!?" The author knows that Television isn't a usual part of the Fantasy genre, but has knowingly subverted it... cool.
If, on the other hand, the writer's a dumbass, and doesn't realise that there was no TV in mediaeval Europe, it has an entirely different effect. Probably not a real good novel.
This is why most RPG's are classified by genres. D&D is a Fantasy Game. Cyberpunk 2020 is a Cyberpunk Game. Travller is a Science-Fiction Game. Champions is a Superhero Game. That way, you as gamer have some idea what to expect.

This is where we get into 'respect for the conventions'.

You play fantasy because you like fantasy games. You play superheroes because you like superheroes. You play science fiction games because you like science fiction. Or at least, there is something in the genre that you like.
Whether you like 'conventional' science fiction or not is irrelevent. You like at least SOME elements of the genre, or you wouldn't be playing the game. And even if you prefer The Punisher or Wolverine over Superman (that goody-goody!) you can probably still respect the fact that he's the first costumed superhero without letting it affect your Dark Champions game.
It's almost impossible to play a game without following some conventions. The weirdest, most off the wall idea still needs some conventions to hang their conceptual hat off, or it becomes almost impossible to discuss it.
And as I said, just because you don't follow the conventions doesn't mean you can't respect them.

Okay, now we get onto 'Tradition' for tradition's sake.
My favourite movie of all time is 'Miller's Crossing' and in that film, two gangsters, played by Albert Finney and Gabriel Byrne have the following exchange:
AF: "You do anything for your friends, just like you do anything to hurt your enemies."
GB: "No Leo, you do things for a reason."

I like genre conventions. But I don't follow them for the sake of them, and nor do most people (I'd say almost all!). They do it for a reason, sometimes many.
I follow genre conventions because it makes for a nice shorthand. You can tell someone it's a 'gangster-type car' without having to know too much about Automobiles of the 1930's. It also means that pretty much everyone knows what you're talking about.
If one of the NPC's starts talking like Peter Lorre, similarly, you pretty much know what he's on about, too. Stereotypes can be useful.
I also follow genre conventions because I like stories. And a certain amount of satisfaction can be had in a story told well, and told 'right'. If you're watching a horror movie, for example, you pretty much expect that the monster is gonna jump out at you at some point and scare the bejeezus outta you. If it didn't happen, you might be disappointed. It doesn't always happen, but it's nice when it does, and when it works well.
However, the main reason I'm a hardcore Genre Fiend. The main reason I love my conventions, whether I'm following them or subverting them or ignoring them, is because they're fun.
It's fun delivering groaningly-awful superhero dialogue in a cheesy deep voice. It's fun giving a gangster a good sock in the jaw while exclaiming, "You Rat!" It's fun slaying dragons and rescuing Princesses. It's fun piloting a tiny starfighter through a hail of laserfire.

So when you say it's Tradition for the sake of Tradition, I have to disagree. I don't do it 'cause it's traditional. I do it for a reason, many reasons in fact...

And reason #1 is... It's Fun!
And isn't that what playing games is all about?

______________________________________________
Pol.
(Descriptive, not restrictive)

[Warp9]

Originally posted by Derek Hiemforth
Speaking as one who also has little respect for "tradition for tradition's sake," I respectfully submit that you seem to me to be wrong in this case. :)

It wouldn't be the first time, and it probably will not be the last time.

Those are some good points made by both you and Pol Rua. I will consider what you've said carefully.

I think that the point has been made that most GMs don't feel constrained by genre. And that my friend, who said that Shadowrun was bad because it "broke genre rules," was not speaking for the majority of genre conscious individuals.

I still wonder about the role of genre as it relates to Players. If I am playing in a super-hero game, and I challenge some of the GM's genre conventions, it seems to me that sometimes genre can go from a descriptive force to a prescriptive one.

[Lord Mhoram]

Originally posted by Warp9

I still wonder about the role of genre as it relates to Players. If I am playing in a super-hero game, and I challenge some of the GM's genre conventions, it seems to me that sometimes genre can go from a descriptive force to a prescriptive one.

I think that depending on what genre conventions you are challenging, you could be challenging that unspoken contract that both Derek and I mentioned. If I as GM am running a silver age style game and everyone is planning on having lots of fun spouting such phrases "Fractioning Photons" and having lots of talking apes, trying to bring in shades of gray morality could impact the GM and other player's fun.
I would check about genre conventions with the group and make sure the conventions I challenge are not the ones that the players and GM are plaiyng the game specificially to experience. If they are, the previously descriptive conventions could turn prescriptive to enforce what they play the game for.

[Pol Rua]

In the immortal words of Bill Griffith's Zippy the Pinhead, "Are we having fun yet?'

... And that my friend, who said that Shadowrun was bad because it "broke genre rules," was not speaking for the majority of genre conscious individuals.

It sounds like your friend is prescriptive, not genre as a concept. Shadowrun, as a game is okay. I prefer my Cyberpunk without Elves and Dragons,... but then, I love Castle Falkenstein, which crosses genres all over the shop.
The thing is, Shadowrun knows what it's doing. It's breaking rules consciously and with full knowledge of what it's doing. Just like Torg, another game I just love the hell out of!
But let's get down to tin tacks, are you enjoying the game?
If the answer is 'yes', then it's a good game.
Your friend sounds like he's too uptight. He should relax, unclench. Take a deep breath. Ask himself, "Is this game fun?" If not, best not play it, or maybe look at what he doesn't like.
If he doesn't like the mix of 'punk and fantasy, fair 'nuff. Sometimes, games aren't for everyone. Maybe it's the GM. I've seen people play Cyberpunk 2020, for example, with one GM and hate it, only to really enjoy another GM's take on it.
But saying that any game that mixes genres is 'bad' is narrow minded and counterproductive.

I still wonder about the role of genre as it relates to Players. If I am playing in a super-hero game, and I challenge some of the GM's genre conventions, it seems to me that sometimes genre can go from a descriptive force to a prescriptive one.

Sure it can. If you're ruining it for other players. In my first example, I wanted to play a superheroes game. My players didn't. If I ran the game they wanted to play, I wouldn't be having fun. The game fails, and I don't run it.
Similarly, if I'm running a superhero game and one player can't enjoy it without ruining it for the others, then they don't have to play.
This isn't about genre.
All games are prescriptive. Even gung-ho, guts or glory, beer and pretzels D&D which has no use for genre and which may seem fairly free and easy may become harshly prescripive if I try and play in it, and try and run a deep-background character with lots of interaction with NPC's.

Prescriptive Games are not necessarily bad.
If I'm gonna run a game, I usually start with a general feel as to the genre. I describe this to my players. If they like it and want to play, the game goes ahead, however, I reserve power of veto on stuff which is out of genre.
For example, in my gritty and (somewhat) realistic mediaeval fantasy game, if someone wanted to create a wand of magic missiles which they used like a machine gun, that would be anachronistic and I wouldn't allow it. I'll discuss alternatives for the players to try and keep it in genre.
If, on the other hand, I wanted to run a game where mediaeval characters start interacting with characters from 1940's earth due to Nazi Interdimensional experimentation,. I might allow the character to have a machine gun.
Basically, I tell stories. I let people know what sort of story I'm looking to tell at the outset and give them a lot of foreknowledge about what 'rules' I'm incorporating into the game.
Naturally, I also try to find out what sort of game they want, and take that into consideration. And hell, if they don't like what I've got, then it's back to the drawing board.
But letting players know ahead of time what you want to get out of a campaign, and hearing what they want too, is much better than finding out three sessions in that you have two widely differing views.

_____________________________________
Pol.

[Warp9]

Originally posted by Pol Rua
In the immortal words of Bill Griffith's Zippy the Pinhead, "Are we having fun yet?'


Oh Yeah! :)


I would never argue that a GM doesn't have the right choose what sort of game that he or she wants to run.

However, running a game is different than writing a story, at least in the sense that there are other people involved. It is unlikely that everybody will share the exact same vision of the game--but sometimes IMO this situation actually works out for the best. To me, the fact that the Players are free agents, is one of my favorite parts of GMing. I set up the world, the setting, the NPCs, and I interpret the rules of the game system, (that's enough for me) I leave the rest to my Players.

And it is worth pointing out that because the GM controls the world and NPCs, he can still have a strong influence on the behavior of the PCs. For example, a Hack-N-Slasher could easily be put into situations that he has no chance to fight his way out of--a warning that I always give to my more combat-oriented Players. In my games, Players learn very quickly that it is more important to be able to think and talk than it is to fight.

Originally posted by Pol Rua

I have run Superhero Games many times for people who don't dig the genre. And I can tell you that despite the fact that superheroes can cross genres, when you're running a Champions game featuring....

A nonpowered gun nut with a million high tech guns.
A murderous wolf-man hybird with supersenses and big claws.
A Cyborg Robot thingy with inbuilt rocketlaunchers.
A Supernatural Ninja guy whose only loyalty is to himself.
A mysterious homeless guy whose superpower is a kind of situational invisibility (Kinda like Plain Jane).



Originally posted by Pol Rua

In my first example, I wanted to play a superheroes game. My players didn't. If I ran the game they wanted to play, I wouldn't be having fun. The game fails, and I don't run it.


Obviously the game from your first example is not going to run like a Super-Man comic, but that doesn't mean that it can't still be a good game; it would just be a different type of game. Given that it was your world, your setting, your NPCs, and your rules for character creation, I'd say that you had a fair amount of input into the course of the game. If the Players don't want to go in the direction that you'd intended them to, why not just go with the flow? After all, it was still your world, couldn't the game have been fun for all involved?

[Pol Rua]

Obviously the game from your first example is not going to run like a Super-Man comic, but that doesn't mean that it can't still be a good game; it would just be a different type of game. Given that it was your world, your setting, your NPCs, and your rules for character creation, I'd say that you had a fair amount of input into the course of the game. If the Players don't want to go in the direction that you'd intended them to, why not just go with the flow? After all, it was still your world, couldn't the game have been fun for all involved?

Could'a been.
Bit of background. I don't play 'evil games'*. One type of game which really bugs the crap out of me is the 'endless cavalcade of victims' game, where the 'heroes' shear through the opposition like Freddy Kreuger or Jason Voorhees.
I'd just come off playing a Cyberpunk 2020 game which basically game down to "Which weapons will be most effective in killing everything in the area this time?"
There was no character interaction. No real role-playing and it was just a First-Person Shooter basically. I got sick of it.

Admittedly, this game as written could've been fun if I'd played if for broad comedy. Kind o' like a big-budget buddy action movie with the testosterone amped up to 11, but I wasn't in the mood. I was sick of gun-toting, unshaven, cigar-chomping he-men who made Frank Castle and Wolverine look like pussies.

I didn't want to run it like that. And I didn't want to run 'set 'em up and knock 'em down' games. The campaign never got off the ground. If I had run it, it would've turned into a grinding mess as I forced myself to GM a bunch of stuff I was quietly despising. I tend to do that a lot as a player - bit my tongue and go along with the cavalcade of death. I don't like to rock the boat.
But I find GMing hard, very hard indeed. And if I'm not enjoying it, it's just too damn hard.
The other thing is, if I'd kept (through NPC's, situations etc...) to keep driving my players somewhere they didn't want to go, they were going to be as annoyed as me. All they wanted was to kill things and come up with clever plans to blow stuff up. If I'd tried to direct them away from that, we were all gonna be irritated.

As I said, if you're not having fun, why are you playing?


____________________________________________
Pol.
(* - there's no real 'moral' reason for this. I just find most of them boring. They usually turn into this weird Monty Haul thing where you burn the village to the ground and torture everyone, the paladins come over the hill and you kill them, and just ride onto the next village. Dumb.)

[Warp9]

Originally posted by Pol Rua
Could'a been.
Bit of background. I don't play 'evil games'*. One type of game which really bugs the crap out of me is the 'endless cavalcade of victims' game, where the 'heroes' shear through the opposition like Freddy Kreuger or Jason Voorhees.
I'd just come off playing a Cyberpunk 2020 game which basically game down to "Which weapons will be most effective in killing everything in the area this time?"
There was no character interaction. No real role-playing and it was just a First-Person Shooter basically. I got sick of it.

Admittedly, this game as written could've been fun if I'd played if for broad comedy. Kind o' like a big-budget buddy action movie with the testosterone amped up to 11, but I wasn't in the mood. I was sick of gun-toting, unshaven, cigar-chomping he-men who made Frank Castle and Wolverine look like pussies.

I didn't want to run it like that. And I didn't want to run 'set 'em up and knock 'em down' games. The campaign never got off the ground. If I had run it, it would've turned into a grinding mess as I forced myself to GM a bunch of stuff I was quietly despising. I tend to do that a lot as a player - bit my tongue and go along with the cavalcade of death. I don't like to rock the boat.
But I find GMing hard, very hard indeed. And if I'm not enjoying it, it's just too damn hard.
The other thing is, if I'd kept (through NPC's, situations etc...) to keep driving my players somewhere they didn't want to go, they were going to be as annoyed as me. All they wanted was to kill things and come up with clever plans to blow stuff up. If I'd tried to direct them away from that, we were all gonna be irritated.

As I said, if you're not having fun, why are you playing?


____________________________________________
Pol.
(* - there's no real 'moral' reason for this. I just find most of them boring. They usually turn into this weird Monty Haul thing where you burn the village to the ground and torture everyone, the paladins come over the hill and you kill them, and just ride onto the next village. Dumb.)

There is a difference between not liking the super-hero genre, and being a Hack-N-Slasher. Thinking and talking will always be more important than fighting in my games--that has nothing to do with genre. It will be that way if I'm running Shadowrun, Cyberpunk, Fantasy, or any other type of game. You may find people who play all those games as hack-n-slash, but none of them have to be run that way. If all your players wanted to do was blow stuff up, IMO they should have been war-gaming, instead of role-playing. Saying that the problem was that "the players didn't like the genre" is like complaining that a nuke can cause hearing loss--it's true, but it misses the real problem (and it also associates all people who don't like the super-hero genre with Hack-N-Slashers)

Yes, your Players might have been irritated if you'd tried to get them to play a different sort of game, but I don't think that you should be sure of that fact. Most Hack-N-Slashers can enjoy real role-playing if the situation is presented to them in the right way. And there are a million subtle ways that a GM can discourage mindless combat, ones that won't leave the players with the feeling that they've been "driven" in that direction.

Getting back to the genre issue, it's clear that you don't want Hack-N-Slashers in your game. But what about other people who don't like all the super-hero genre conventions. How would you react if somebody wanted to play a character with: no costume, no code name, and who didn't want to fight anybody at all, but instead wanted to use his powers to help mankind explore the solar system?

[Pol Rua]

Getting back to the genre issue... How would you react if somebody wanted to play a character with: no costume, no code name, and who didn't want to fight anybody at all, but instead wanted to use his powers to help mankind explore the solar system?

I created a game once which was intended to be a cross between Half-Life's Black Mesa Project and scientific adventurers like the Fantastic Four and the Challengers of the Unknown.
A character like the one you describe would be pretty good in a game like that... however, I could forsee some difficulties.
Let's run him thorugh 'Black Mesa'.
No costume. Fair enough. However, some sort of fatigue uniform with identifying badges, utility webbing and so forth was part of the uniform. It wasn't spandex and it wasn't in bright, primary colours. Would you class that as a costume?
No code name. Fair enough. It'd be neat to have a nickname, like the Challs - none of them are called Captain Fudgestain or anything, but a nickname could be groovy...
Didn't want to fight. This could be a hassle. You see, while I'm no hack and slasher, I do like the occasional superpowered dustup in my games. Not necessarily AK-47's at 10 paces, but a bit of a fracas...
Wanted to help mankind explore the solar system. Would you be willing to help advanced scientific researcher explore the depths of the Negative Zone, or the Hollow Earth... or are you talking Mars here? Developing mining in the Asteroid Belt?
Basically, this is a prescriptive genre. Scientific Super-Adventurers. Would you be interested in a game along those lines?

Alternately, a character like that could fit in quite well in a 'Plainclothes Superhero' Game, based on TV shows like The Six-Million Dollar Man or John Carpenter's Starman.
In a game like this, the characters would be superhumans from various origins... over the years, they've been captured by evil government researchers like 'The Four' in Planetary. An escape happens, and these strange people with extraordinary powers are thrust into a world that doesn't know they exist. Helping people on the way, all the while trying to stay one step ahead from the bad guys.
Let's run him thorugh 'Plainclothes Hero'.
No costume. Naturally. Dress inconspicuous.
No code name. Again, naturally enough. Though again, a nickname could be kinda neat.
Didn't want to fight. In this setting, this isn't a problem. If you don't wanna fight, this'd be a nice way to highlight how evil the baddies are by making them wilfully violent. Hsssss. Booo!
Wanted to help mankind explore the solar system. Here would seem to be the problem. You're anticipating spacewalks and guided re-entries from the get-go. Would you be willing to have this as an eventual goal, rather than an everyday activity?
Again, this is a prescriptive genre. Plainclothes fugitives a la The Incredible Hulk or (Marvel New Universe Title) DP7. Would you be interested in a game along those lines?

Option #3. It's a spy game. Probably set in the early-mid 60's and superhumans are a resource grown out of background radiation since the war. The Commies have got 'em, and so have we.
I could play this two ways:
#1. The Space Race is on, and all the supers are on the job. We want those terrifying Martian war machines all to ouirselves, because if the Commies get there first, Mars won't be the only 'Red Planet' in our Solar System! Dun-dun-DAHHHHHH!
#2. Realistic Spy Drama. In this version, most of the missions will involve life and death secret missions to sabotage their space program, or save ours from the same sort of sabotage (This'd be my least favourite to run, because of all the research I'd have to put into it). Alternately, if you were willing to ditch the space exploration angle, we could make it just Len Deighton style Cold War shenanigans a la The Ipcress File.
Let's run him thorugh '60's Superspy Hero''.
No costume. No problem.
No code name. Naturally enough, though a spy-name like 'Jayhawk' or '007' or 'Secret Agent X5' would be well within genre.
Didn't want to fight. In this setting, this is a big hassle. There's a war going on, and just 'cause it's Cold doesn't mean there's no fighting to be done. Admittedly, in Version #2, there's a lot more investigation and talking to people, but at the end of the day, if it's you or them, it's gotta be them.
Wanted to help mankind explore the solar system. Version #1, no problem. #2, as I indicated before, may be difficult for anything beyond a short-term campaign - one story.
Again, this is a prescriptive genre. Ipcress File, James Bond, or Nick Fury, Agent of SHIELD... Superspy Shenanigans. Would you be interested in a game along those lines?

Option #4. This one is probably closest to your original idea. This is a near-future (or far-future) Star Hero game with superhumans assisting in terraforming Mars and helping colony ships get there.This would work along hard-sci fi lines, like Kim Stanley Robinson or Isaac Asimov.
Again, this is one I'd rather not run. Science isn't my strong suit, and it's not something that particularly grabs me.

So there ya go. If you, as a player came to me with these ideas, these are the campaign ideas I'd come up with. However, if I as a GM had asked everyone to create standard, four colour superheroes, I'd have to veto the character, or ask for substantial changes.
(1) It's a four colour game. The supposition is that characters have to guard their ID's to protect loved ones. Alternately, you could play a mascot (like Rick Jones or Snapper Carr) or a support player (like Dr.Zarkov, or Alfred) and keep the no mask., no codename schtick. Still, I could overlook it, as long as EVERYONE didn't want to be costume and codename-less.
(2) Doesn't want to fight crime... just wants to explore. Okay, so I give everyone the plot seed - Doctor Destroyer is preparing his mind control ray for another go round. Everyone else leaps into action except you.
You: "Yawn. Keep it down guys. I gotta get up tomorrow for the launch."
Everyone else: "Hey dude, Dr.Destroyer's gonna take over the world."
You: "So let him. I don't want to fight him. You guys go trash him. Good luck. Zzzzzzzz..."

As you can see, this derails a perfectly good adventure, and while I should be running Dr.Myrmidion and FireEagle belting the crap out of Destroyer's faceless hordes, I gotta keep cutting back to you for another round of death-defying gauge alignment and pressure-sealing.
This is why I establish Genre at the beginning of a campaign. It sets expectations, so people know what sort of characters will and won't work... and this guy won't work in a slam-bang four colour superhero game. He WILL work in the other genres, and that's why I talk to players beforehand and try to take their interests into account.

How's that?


___________________________________
Pol.
(Man this is a great thread. I'm really having to use the ol' noodle here!)

[Pol Rua]

Aw maaaaaan,
I just posted this ENORMOUS reply to this post, and my damn browser crashed. Lost the whole damn thing.

Okay, lemme give ya the gist. I'm not writing that bloody opus again!!!

Okay, you've got this space-dude, and you're itching to run him in a game. I scratch my head for a bit, and come up with some ideas.

#1. This is a game where you play scientific researchers, explorers and adventurers, like The Fantastic Four or the Challengers of the Unknown.
No name or costume is no hassle. But a nickname is kinda cool, and having a uniform (even standard-issue fatigues with a project badge) is probably a necessity - at least on many missions.
Not wanting to fight could be difficult, 'cos while I'm no hack-n-slasher, I do like a bit of a dust-up now and then. You'll have to be willing to back up your team.
Also, how set are you to 'exploring the solar system'? Would you be willing to expand that to cover The Negative Zone and The Hollow Earth?

#2. This is the plainclothes supers on the run game, like Marvel's DP-7, The Incredible Hulk TV show or John Carpenter's Starman.
In this game, a number of supers get captured by evil government scientists (like The Four, in Ellis' 'Planetary'). They stage an escape and do a runner, helping those they meet on the way while trying to stay one step ahead of the government.
The big problem here is the space-exploration schtick. Can this be an eventual goal or do you want space-walks and assisted re-entry from adventure #1?

#3. Spies. Set during the Cold War with supers (the result of Background Radiation after WWII) are the West's secret weapon against the Reds. This can be run as a semi-realistic game, like Len Deighton's 'The Ipcress File', or as a cornball Silver Age kitsch-fest, like The Avengers or Nick Fury, Agent of SHIELD.
Costumes and code names are not essential, but Superspy code names are cool.
Not willing to fight can be a hassle, but it depends on to what degree you have the psych lim... or even if you do.
Space Exploration is again the sticky bit. In the campy one, I can have it be a Space Race to secret Martian power weapons, hidden in the canals of Mars. If the Commies get there first, Mars won't be the Solar System's only 'Red Planet'!
For the more realistic one, it'd probablt be a short-term game, possibly no more than one mission, built around the space program.

#4. Hard(ish) sci-fi. This could be along the lines of Kim Stanley Robinson's 'Mars' series, only with superpowers as a Heinlein Fantasy-esque addition (PC's are weird human-alien hybrids - like Michael Valentine Smith from 'Stranger in a Strange Land'). This is probably the closest to what you'd be wanting to run, but it'd be the one I'd least like to run, mostly because science isn't my thing, and research makes my brain hurt.

How's that?


________________________________________
Pol.

[Doug McCrae]

Pol: That was a great post, good thing it wasn't lost after all. The examples really explain the concept of a character fitting into a game (or not).

[Doug McCrae]

Originally posted by Pol Rua
A nonpowered gun nut with a million high tech guns.
A murderous wolf-man hybird with supersenses and big claws.
A Cyborg Robot thingy with inbuilt rocketlaunchers.
A Supernatural Ninja guy whose only loyalty is to himself.
A mysterious homeless guy whose superpower is a kind of situational invisibility (Kinda like Plain Jane).

You realise that yup, these folks don't want to play superheroes.

Maybe they want to play late 80s/early 90s superheroes.

Gun nut = Punisher, Grifter (from WildCATS)
Wolf-man = Wolverine, Sabertooth
Cyborg = Cable? Image had many cyborgs who's names I don't recall. I think War Machine had a rocket launcher.
Supernatural ninja = Psylocke, Zealot, Elektra? All the ninjas from that period seemed to be babes
The mysterious homeless dude is trickier but Marvel did have a character called D-Man who was kind of a bum/superhero. I think he had superstrength.

Really I agree with you, though. I'd only want these sorts of characters if I said up front it was a late 80s/early 90s game. I have run a oneoff set in that period. Once I get home I could post the characters. (They're systemless).

The Image Era: Superheroes were less superheroey then.

[Doug McCrae]

Originally posted by Warp9
And there are a million subtle ways that a GM can discourage mindless combat, ones that won't leave the players with the feeling that they've been "driven" in that direction.

It's not mindless. There's a good reason for it - The accumulation of experience points, magic items and treasure.

[rowport]

Pol: That was a fantastic summary of approaching game style within a genre.

Doug: I think the Image style is an interesting sub-genre within comics, as is the Dark Knight/Watchmen, and now the Marvel Ultimate lines. None of those fit the classic 4-color style, but are all valid in their approach (well, I am not sure the Image approach is valid, but you get what I mean). Instead of going with 4-color superheroics, my new game is darker and grittier, but not quite post-modernist, kind of an Ultimates-lite.