Genre Conventions 2: What is Cool?

[Robyn]

Continuing in the spirit of my first Genre Conventions thread, I am trying to create in-character explanations of our beloved genre conventions.

 

However, this time I have no particular convention in mind. I intend to delve into the very source of them all, and establish the relevance of these questions to each group's campaign.

 

When we get together to play, and assuming we have any genre(s) in mind, we want to play a game "of that genre". But what is that genre? In each of our minds, there is a general idea, acquired from:

 

books

TV and movies

comics, manga, and other magazines

radio (think the Doctor Who series)

 

But the particulars of this "general idea" may differ from mind to mind. This is partially because we all have exposure to different subsets of the total source material. There's something more to it, though. There are some aspects of the source material which strike us as especially appropriate, and thus more representative of the genre. These strong points are not all there is to a good game, though.

 

Games are also about having fun. We game with various genres in mind because we think those genres would be fun, but what specifically do we expect would be fun? This depends on a closely related aspect of genre: what is cool?

 

To run genres that are fun, the GM should have an idea of what her players think is cool within that genre. The opinions of every player will differ, though, and here it is important to look at the "majority consensus". If just one player thinks something is cool, it may be unrelated to genre. But if most (or all) players think something is cool, it's safe to conclude that this is what your group thinks the genre is about.

 

This is crucial for individual groups, and you don't need to consult anyone outside your group to run a game that's fun for them. But for a broader definition of each genre, and to come up with in-character explanations that are more likely to be helpful to other groups, it's necessary to gather as much information as everyone is willing to share when formulating these genre conventions.

 

I'm here to ask each of you - what (per genre) do you find Cool?

 

This doesn't need to be literal "coolness"; any scene, or moment, or overall storyline, that you found to be fulfilling or that you thought defined the genre. In an angst-filled genre, it might be the moment when a haunted character who led a torturous life suddenly discovered that all his best efforts had only made things worse.

 

Don't be afraid of describing death scenes lest your GM think of arranging one for your character.

 

Remember, heroes never die - they come back in sequels

[Wolfgar]

Re: Genre Conventions 2: What is Cool?

 

Leather Jacket- Cool, if a bit dated.

 

Leath Trenchcoat- Cool, because it combines leather jacket with a cloak.

 

Leather Vest- Not cool.

 

So what is cool? Leather Sleeves.

[Robyn]

Drama - suffering beckons power

 

Several scenes in Terry Brook's Shannara series (most notably in the Scions of Shannara, with Fawn's last fight scene), and in Mercedes Lackey's Velgarth books (most notably in the final part of Brightly Burning), uphold the ideal that intense emotions call forth power (usually from within oneself) proportionate to the strength of those emotions, with anguish the common catalyst for drawing upon power with all emotions.

[tgrandjean]

Re: Genre Conventions 2: What is Cool?

 

Sheesh. I think you're setting yourself up for an impossible task. My cool is not your cool and all that. And again it'll depend more upon your particular group than anything else... but what the hey?

 

All genres: Intense combat. Combat that there is an honest and good risk of character death. Preferably against an opponent that you feel strongly about. For that matter, intense confrontations and political/philosophical discussions can be cool... But I like me combat. Thank you. Hand me my club.

A chance to make a difference in the world. Perhaps not even in the greater sense and perhaps only in the personal sense, I want to feel I can make a difference.

Personal style... and perhaps attractiveness. Lets face it, this is a game not reality. A cool look and tossing off the right lines at the right times makes the game fun for me.

Drama. I love a little melodrama every now and then. Sue me.

 

Sci-Fi: Gotta be the tech. Really. It doesn't even have to be scientifically plausible, but ya gotta have the toys. They don't even have to be world-shaking, they just have to give you additional capacities. And I love me my mecha; both giant robots and starships.

 

Sub cat./Cyberpunk: Add in the love of guns (gimme lots of fun stats to ooh and aah about and some reason to choose one model over another) and a thick coat of melodrama, mercenary activities, and a splash of betrayal. Shake, add a lugnut, and swallow.

 

Fantasy: Really, for me it's all about tactics; how you deal with conflict on both a large scale and a personal scale as well as adding in the effects of magic. Additional notes are stage settings (it's fantasy; why not have a battle taking place during a volcanic eruption?), scale of the campaign (Go epic! Let's rock the world!), and personal drama.

 

Superheroic: What's cool for me is dealing with whatever situations come up. That's a little generic. So elaborating; dealing with a situation that would be difficult in your ordinary life and being able to effortlessly solve it... or not. Having to deal with extraordinary problems (like hiding a secret identity) and succeeding... or failing. In otherwords, give me drama.... And combat.

[Susano]

Re: Genre Conventions 2: What is Cool?

 

Sheesh. I think you're setting yourself up for an impossible task. My cool is not your cool and all that.

 

Case in point -- mentioning anything to do with the Shannara books. Those thing are utterly awful.

[Robyn]

Re: Genre Conventions 2: What is Cool?

 

Case in point -- mentioning anything to do with the Shannara books. Those thing are utterly awful.

 

As epic fantasy they do fall prey to the "long, boring sequences which exist for no other reason than to raise the reader's boredom level to a sufficient height that the exciting moments will seem that much more exciting" syndrome, but as drama it does have its moments.

[Susano]

Re: Genre Conventions 2: What is Cool?

 

As epic fantasy they do fall prey to the "long' date=' boring sequences which exist for no other reason than to raise the reader's boredom level to a sufficient height that the exciting moments will seem that much more exciting" syndrome, but as drama it does have its moments.[/quote']

 

I tried re-reading "Sword" a few years ago. I managed 1.5 pages and then tossed the book. Sorry, I find them unreadable.

[Robyn]

Re: Genre Conventions 2: What is Cool?

 

I tried re-reading "Sword" a few years ago. I managed 1.5 pages and then tossed the book. Sorry' date=' I find them unreadable.[/quote']

 

You read the very first book an author wrote and condemned the whole bibliography based on that? How about trying a more recent novel to see if he ever improved?

 

I've also found that - if the opening is hard to get through - I can skip ahead in the book, find a good spot, and read to raise my interest level. Then return for the background, and find it easier to get through because it's relevant. Some writers just can't do a good opening, and as a reader I have to accept that. I won't accept missing out on their books entirely just because a few words at the beginning aren't enticing "enough", though.

[Susano]

Re: Genre Conventions 2: What is Cool?

 

You read the very first book an author wrote and condemned the whole bibliography based on that? How about trying a more recent novel to see if he ever improved?

 

I've also found that - if the opening is hard to get through - I can skip ahead in the book, find a good spot, and read to raise my interest level. Then return for the background, and find it easier to get through because it's relevant. Some writers just can't do a good opening, and as a reader I have to accept that. I won't accept missing out on their books entirely just because a few words at the beginning aren't enticing "enough", though.

 

Uhm... no, I won't. I read Sword several times when I was younger, and recall reading at least one (or several of the sequels). As I recall, they don't get any better and my attempt to reread Sword now showed just how bad it was. Besides, if I'm going to read Sword, I might as well read the original -- Lord of the Rings.

[Robyn]

Re: Genre Conventions 2: What is Cool?

 

Besides' date=' if I'm going to read Sword, I might as well read the original -- [i']Lord of the Rings[/i].

 

LotR was even worse

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Genre Conventions 2: What is Cool?

 

What is cool?

Liopleurodons with frickin plasma cannons on ther heads.

[stmichaeldet]

Re: Genre Conventions 2: What is Cool?

 

Features of campaigns I've played in that I found "uncool": High-minded themes, realistic situations, few real direct antagonists, dramatic tension derived from dangerous tasks (exploring, flying experimental aircraft, or the like) rather than conflict, lots of info dumps supporting how "authentic" the science/setting/social milleu is.

 

Features of campaigns that I thought were "cool": Good vs. Evil, wide open character design, strange and unusual settings, real villains, conflict, more concern for creating exciting concepts than stressing over how they'd "really" work.

 

So, I guess, for me (in gaming, at least), "cool" = lowbrow.

 

And I'm cool with that.

[Wolfgar]

Re: Genre Conventions 2: What is Cool?

 

I find heroism and romance to be cool. A game that gives me ample oppurtunity to feel Heroic will provide better outlets for me than one that leaves me feeling like a jerk.

 

By romance I suppose I mean melodrama; characters love, they hate, they emote, they have passion. A sterile, emotionless game where the players are all completely removed from the enviroment will render the coolest tech, power or fight scene utterly boring for me.

[Lemurion]

Re: Genre Conventions 2: What is Cool?

 

A great genre convention is that "Yesterday's Tomorrow" feel you get with some Pulp adventures. Also Zeppelins. They add to that larger than life feel you get with Pulp. Even the street level stuff in that genre is done in broad strokes.

 

As to the Terry Brooks thing-- I read and liked Sword of Shannara when it first came out and I was in my early to mid-teens. I'm an adult now and can't read his stuff. I've tried several books but they're bad, just like Weis and Hickman. It's not the story, it's not the characters, it's the prose.

 

Tolkien, on the other hand, may have written a story that was very slow and hard for some to read, but he was a good writer. He understood writing and the craft of prose.

 

It makes a difference.

 

Superheroes have a number of different genre conventions-- not least being that a character becomes unrecognizable as soon as they take off their glasses (sort of like librarians who remove their glasses to become the next Helen of Troy).

 

Other conventions are that vigilantes are more effective than law enforcement, and that you can solve all problems by hitting someone.

 

All genres have their quirks, and that's what makes them fun.

[SpydirShellX]

Re: Genre Conventions 2: What is Cool?

 

I have to say that I like the Sword of Shannara as a story... my problem comes when I tried to read the rest of them... I got the feeling I was reading the exact same book over again. Only change was that the main characters were children of the previous characters, the badguy changed enough to be a "new" badguy, and the nifty mystical plot device changed.

 

There was another series I got that same feeling for - David Eddings. Not only did things repeat, but they did so in a very predictable manner. The characters had to reach every labeled city on the map of the world at the front of the book... who knows why?

 

As to "cool" - I think things that create a sense of awe or "I wish I could do that" are cool.

For example, in the movies "Equilibrium" and "Matrix" you get a sense of awe from the fight scenes.

However, cool or that sense of Awe can be overdone. In the later Matrix movies for example, the fight sequences get so over the top that it's no longer cool, but rather... "ooo, neat special effects."

I think cool takes the normal and moves it one step (but only one step) beyond.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Genre Conventions 2: What is Cool?

 

As stated above, cool is very subjective, and there can be great problems when a Game Master (or whatever your personal titular preference is) runs games on the basis of 'cool'.

 

Example: The guy I know who thought Van Helsing was the greatest movie ever made, Dragonball Z is the epitome of animation excellence, Grand Theft Auto is the pinnacle of video game franchises, and Adam Sandler is the funniest man who ever lived. What he thinks is 'cool' is NOT what the rest of us think is cool.

[Black Rose]

Re: Genre Conventions 2: What is Cool?

 

I have to say that I like the Sword of Shannara as a story... my problem comes when I tried to read the rest of them... I got the feeling I was reading the exact same book over again. Only change was that the main characters were children of the previous characters, the badguy changed enough to be a "new" badguy, and the nifty mystical plot device changed.

 

There was another series I got that same feeling for - David Eddings. Not only did things repeat, but they did so in a very predictable manner. The characters had to reach every labeled city on the map of the world at the front of the book... who knows why?

Um, 'cause it's a quest?

 

Seriously, though, take a look at The Rivan Codex. It's a collection of all his notes and details regarding the Belgariad, and it explains why the books read like that; he's writing in the style of the romantic quest stories which were popularized by Eleanor of Aquitaign (sp?), who both had the cash and the desire to have people tell her stories she wanted to hear.

 

As to "cool" - I think things that create a sense of awe or "I wish I could do that" are cool.

For example, in the movies "Equilibrium" and "Matrix" you get a sense of awe from the fight scenes.

However, cool or that sense of Awe can be overdone. In the later Matrix movies for example, the fight sequences get so over the top that it's no longer cool, but rather... "ooo, neat special effects."

I think cool takes the normal and moves it one step (but only one step) beyond.

One of the greatest drawbacks for tabletop gaming is the strong lack of visual effects. I absolutely love kung fu flicks, but the real reason I love them has much more to do with the incredible visuals (oftentimes the less realistic the better!) than the story line, good though it may be.

[AliceTheOwl]

Re: Genre Conventions 2: What is Cool?

 

You read the very first book an author wrote and condemned the whole bibliography based on that? How about trying a more recent novel to see if he ever improved?

Why? Is there a shortage of Fantasy novels I'm unaware of, or will I suddenly have hours and hours and hours of time dumped onto my lap, miraculously?

 

There are only so many hours in the day, and only so many books a body can read in those hours. Why waste our time on books that don't interest us, when there are so many that will?

 

As for the original question, it's subjective. Just as a person's tastes in books or food or movies will differ from another, one person's cool is another person's hopelessly mired in homage.

 

I think original with a sense of humor is cool. Others may disagree, which is why I'm glad I'm not gauging my game's success on its coolness, as evaluated by the players.

[Robyn]

Re: Genre Conventions 2: What is Cool?

 

Why? Is there a shortage of Fantasy novels I'm unaware of, or will I suddenly have hours and hours and hours of time dumped onto my lap, miraculously?

 

There are only so many hours in the day, and only so many books a body can read in those hours. Why waste our time on books that don't interest us, when there are so many that will?

 

First - you're missing the point. Why assume that a lot of books aren't interesting, based on a single book by the same author, when there is good reason to believe that book would be their worst and many reasons to believe the quality has had opportunity to change since then? People change with time, practice makes perfect (experience helps), and some authors just don't get various genres or styles of story, but excel at others.

 

Second - "interest" can be multirequisite, or satisfaction with a smaller number of elements. Not everyone demands perfection from the books they read; considering that it's then a lot easier to find something worth reading (in the book at hand), one would think that trying to find books which met every standard one held as important would be more of a waste of one's time than trying to find books which met a few of those important standards.

 

As for the original question' date=' it's subjective.[/quote']

 

Exactly. Which is why I'm asking you what your idea is. Noone has to answer for anyone else, or try to come up with general ideas that many people share. It's a personal question, to each individual who reads it.

 

I think original with a sense of humor is cool.

 

Thanks

 

As stated above' date=' cool is very subjective, and there can be great problems when a Game Master (or whatever your personal titular preference is) runs games on the basis of 'cool'.[/quote']

I'm glad I'm not gauging my game's success on its coolness' date=' as evaluated by the players.[/quote']

 

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. I'm not saying that the game's Coolness factor should be its only measure of success or foundation for detail. Mind you, I do believe that most games could be improved if it were a factor, but I'm not suggesting that everything else be abandoned and ignored in the quest for perfect Coolness.

 

Example: The guy I know who thought Van Helsing was the greatest movie ever made' date=' Dragonball Z is the epitome of animation excellence, Grand Theft Auto is the pinnacle of video game franchises, and Adam Sandler is the funniest man who ever lived. What he thinks is 'cool' is NOT what the rest of us think is cool.[/quote']

 

Stepping for a moment beyond the range of genre conventions, and into general "cool" territory - then don't put that stuff into your games. If he is the only one who thinks this stuff is cool, but puts it in his (and your) games anyway, then my proposal is exactly what you need - because it requires that such elements be explicitly acknowledged (and declared) for inclusion. If he thinks something is cool, and you think it is cool, and (most of) the other players think it is cool - that's what gets incorporated into the game.

[Susano]

Re: Genre Conventions 2: What is Cool?

 

First - you're missing the point. Why assume that a lot of books aren't interesting' date=' based on a single book by the same author, when there is good reason to believe that book would be their worst and many reasons to believe the quality has had opportunity to change since then? People change with time, practice makes perfect (experience helps), and some authors just don't [i']get[/i] various genres or styles of story, but excel at others.

 

I don't think she's missing the point. I mean, I've read 2 or 3 Shannara novels. I don't really see the need to read any more of them, no matter "how good" Brooks may be now.

[Robyn]

Re: Genre Conventions 2: What is Cool?

 

I don't think she's missing the point. I mean' date=' I've read 2 or 3 Shannara novels. I don't really see the need to read any more of them, no matter "how good" Brooks may be now.[/quote']

 

She quoted me as saying "You read the very first book an author wrote and condemned the whole bibliography based on that? How about trying a more recent novel to see if he ever improved?", and responded with her lack of free time and a comment about wasting time on "books that don't interest us" - which presumes an answer to the question of whether those books actually were uninteresting or not! Since her response skipped over the very question I made a point of asking, I concluded that she had missed this point.

[AliceTheOwl]

Re: Genre Conventions 2: What is Cool?

 

First - you're missing the point. Why assume that a lot of books aren't interesting' date=' based on a single book by the same author, when there is good reason to believe that book would be their worst and many reasons to believe the quality has had opportunity to change since then? People change with time, practice makes perfect (experience helps), and some authors just don't [i']get[/i] various genres or styles of story, but excel at others.

I think you're missing my point, actually. I have a list of books I'd like to read. It's currently 175 items long, and isn't getting any shorter. I also have a list of books I'd like to reread, about 50 items long. I have no lack of books I want to read. And I give each of those books 100 pages (give or take) to draw me in. If a book disgusts me in those 100 pages, I discard it, and re-evaluate anything else by that author. Did the same person recommend all of this author's works? Well then, it's clear they don't know my taste in reading as well as they thought they did, and off the author goes from my reading list. Did different people recommend these books, for different reasons? Then it merely gets moved to the bottom of the list, and I read something else until I can forget that I hated the last thing I read by that author. However, if I particularly like a book, their other works either get added or bumped up the reading list.

 

Second - "interest" can be multirequisite, or satisfaction with a smaller number of elements. Not everyone demands perfection from the books they read; considering that it's then a lot easier to find something worth reading (in the book at hand), one would think that trying to find books which met every standard one held as important would be more of a waste of one's time than trying to find books which met a few of those important standards.

I'm not asking perfection; I'm asking that I be entertained, take something away that I didn't know/feel/think of before, that I understand a concept I've never experienced, or just that I haven't felt my time was totally wasted. I ask of books I read that I'm not offended, that the writing engages me, and that I care what happens. If it can't meet those three requirements, it's a waste of my time.

 

To give you a concrete example, I refuse to read anything by Laurell K. Hamilton. My sister recommended the books to me, and lent me three of them. I got my 100 pages through one, and promptly flung the first book across the room. I found it unrealistic, superficial, and badly-written. The writing particularly bothered me because I used to write that way, before I knew any better, and feared I'd fall back into my old habits if I continued getting this reinforcement.

 

I have re-evaluated this decision from time to time, thinking I might change my mind. I've asked people who are fans for reviews, checked on the things that bothered me about what I read to see if she'd improved, and come away with the conclusion that she now writes like the reason why I won't read Ann Rice anymore.

 

Am I missing out by refusing to read about Anita Blake? I don't particularly think so, though many people tell me I'm wrong. But books are just as subjective as this "coolness" you're talking about. Many people like Dickens and Melville, but I find them wordy and boring. I like Stephen King, and many people find him too profane, or that he throws in gross things for gross things' sake. If we all liked the same books and the same authors, why bother with the plethora of books published every year? Why not just stick to publishing only bestsellers?

 

But there are plenty of things that I want to read, without delving into something I'm certain from the start I'll dislike. Life is too short to waste my free time on things that feel like homework.

[Robyn]

Re: Genre Conventions 2: What is Cool?

 

If a book disgusts me in those 100 pages' date=' I discard it, and re-evaluate anything else by that author.[/quote']

 

Out of curiosity, what happens when you've already read most of the other books by that author, and loved them?

 

I had this happen with a fantasy author who tried their hand at scifi, or vice versa (I don't remember). I first wondered if it was another author by the same name, but the lists of "other books by this author" in the front listed those other books. That's when I began looking into why quality isn't always consistent. Ever since then, I've been more discriminating about the books I look for; I won't, for instance, go to the bookstore and buy everything by an author I just read an excellent book by, because they might have achieved one masterpiece in their career. Now I distinguish by genre, series, type of story (as described on the back cover), author and - lastly - when it was written.

 

If we all liked the same books and the same authors' date=' why bother with the plethora of books published every year?[/quote']

 

I don't think it's a "plethora" anymore. Books are getting more expensive for the end consumer (part of this is the tax on goods in warehouse, but they just keep getting more and more costly every year), and this forces editors to tighten their quality requirements. This is why we see more by the bestsellers and less by new authors; the publishers can't afford to hold on to titles that aren't selling right away (and in large quantities), so they have to refuse to print anything they aren't extremely confident will be very popular.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Genre Conventions 2: What is Cool?

 

I think you're missing my point, actually. I have a list of books I'd like to read. It's currently 175 items long, and isn't getting any shorter. I also have a list of books I'd like to reread, about 50 items long. I have no lack of books I want to read. And I give each of those books 100 pages (give or take) to draw me in. If a book disgusts me in those 100 pages, I discard it, and re-evaluate anything else by that author. Did the same person recommend all of this author's works? Well then, it's clear they don't know my taste in reading as well as they thought they did, and off the author goes from my reading list. Did different people recommend these books, for different reasons? Then it merely gets moved to the bottom of the list, and I read something else until I can forget that I hated the last thing I read by that author. However, if I particularly like a book, their other works either get added or bumped up the reading list.

 

 

I'm not asking perfection; I'm asking that I be entertained, take something away that I didn't know/feel/think of before, that I understand a concept I've never experienced, or just that I haven't felt my time was totally wasted. I ask of books I read that I'm not offended, that the writing engages me, and that I care what happens. If it can't meet those three requirements, it's a waste of my time.

If at some point you decide to give Brooks another shot, might I reccomend his Urban Fantasy 3 books series (Running with the Demon, Knight of the Word, and Angel Fire East). A pretty fun little read, a good strong female protagonist, and about 500% better than the Shanarra books I've read (I've only read the original 3... Sword was an OK read when I was 11, but it hasn't really stood the test of time).

[AliceTheOwl]

Re: Genre Conventions 2: What is Cool?

 

Out of curiosity' date=' what happens when you've already read most of the other books by that author, and loved them?[/quote']

Then I figure the one that I don't like is just a fluke, and hope it's not a pattern. But I tend to avoid similar books by that author.

 

I don't think it's a "plethora" anymore. Books are getting more expensive for the end consumer (part of this is the tax on goods in warehouse' date=' but they just keep getting more and more costly every year), and this forces editors to tighten their quality requirements. This is why we see more by the bestsellers and less by new authors; the publishers can't afford to hold on to titles that aren't selling [i']right away[/i] (and in large quantities), so they have to refuse to print anything they aren't extremely confident will be very popular.

That's actually a very common myth about publishing. Check out Making Light for a better perspective on the matter. (It's run by two editors at Tor, and some contributers.) In particular, this point, by Teresa Nielsen-Hayden from October 19th:

 

I’ve been hearing the “publishing is becoming a winner-take-all sweepstakes” riff since I started working in the industry. It’s not true, and it’s not becoming true. I suspect it’s generated by lazy news departments that can’t be bothered to take notice of books that aren’t blockbusters, and from this conclude that blockbusters are all that matters in publishing.

 

Bestsellers aren’t the whole of publishing. Every year, we publish a great many okaysellers.

 

She later adds that there are about 10,000 new books published each year, with a regular circulation of about 100 - 120,000 books in print any given year, VERY few of which are bestsellers.

 

If at some point you decide to give Brooks another shot' date=' might I reccomend his Urban Fantasy 3 books series (Running with the Demon, Knight of the Word, and Angel Fire East). A pretty fun little read, a good strong female protagonist, and about 500% better than the Shanarra books I've read (I've only read the original 3... Sword was an OK read when I was 11, but it hasn't really stood the test of time).[/quote']

Heh. Actually, I've never given Brooks that first chance, but I'll keep your recommendation in mind. Thanks! ^ v ^