From: lmollett@lunatix.uucp (Laura Mollett)
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.games.cyber renaming and unmoderation
Organization: Lexington Public Access Unix. -KY- (606) 255-9121
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 18:07:01 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.055721.2255@archtwr.tower.nullnet.fi> elandal@archtwr.tower.nullnet.fi (Ismo Peltonen) writes:
>Laura Mollett (lmollett@lunatix.uucp) wrote:
>: In article <1992Dec9.034530.8036@archtwr.tower.nullnet.fi> elandal@archtwr.tower.nullnet.fi (Ismo Peltonen) writes:
>: >  I know it very well.
>: Well, there are some very good reasons why these people are opposed to "genre"
>: splits.  Why do you think the .cyber group should be a exception?
>
>  Cyberpunk contains elements unknown in fantasy, other scifi, historical,
>or many other genres I can think of. Cyberpunk LIVES on these elements,
>they are the cornerstones of the genre. And, as I said, they are quite
>unknown in other genres.
>  In what genre would you expect to see deckers plugging themselves into
>the matrix, a worldwide computer network? How about the 'on the
>edge'-feel of cyberpunk? Limbs replaced with tech quite commonly?
>Runners (who are not part of any corp but do the dirty work for
>whichever pays them)?
>  I can think of campaign plots that are used in cyberpunk but don't fit
>into other genres without serious rewriting. How about discussion about
>how cybernetic parts should affect the sanity? Or 'how to design a
>decent computer network which has defences against the netrunners but
>are not impenetrable'? Or AIs?

The reasons for the opposition to "genre" based splits aren't because genres
_can't_ be defined.  They can, although it is difficult and there are a lot
of cross-overs, but more because even ideas that seem specific to one genre
are good jump-off points for ideas in another.  I'm playing in a campaign right
now that is a post-holocaust type thing...mebbe dark future or scifi, but
probably not cyberpunk.  The cyberpunk "feel" is missing.  There are no 
corporations out to get us.  However, I'm playing a witch who has a cyberlink
to an AI.  Her "magic" is really high-tech. There really isn't any difference
between magic and very high levels of technology.  Her "spells" are written up
using the spell systems in fantasy hero, and would be of use to other fantasy
campaigns.  The discussion of her sanity due to the cyber link with the AI
and the AI's sanity (he's played by anther PC) and her "familiars" (which are
actually computer-controlled remotes) etc. etc. would surely be of interest
to a cybergame.  What "genre" does discussion of this campaign belong in?  Most
people are interested in any discussion except the serious rules-based ones.
If one is discussing exactly how one runs combat in cyberhero, it's probably
only useful to cyberhero players, but if one is discussing plots, or characters
or almost anything else, they can be used in any campaign.  What you can't
limit is the imagination of the people roleplaying, and who knows what will
spark an idea for a GM for his next campaign, or for a player for his next
character? 
>
>: I'm really firmly opposed to anything that will further scatter the role-playing
>: discussion.  It's easy to kill very technical discussions, but any game system
>: can generate the campaign ideas, plot ideas, character ideas, and general
>: role-playing  advice and discussion.  I feel we lose a lot when these ideas
>: get too split up.  Without a real clear idea of where the dividing lines are
>: and what comes into what group, I'm afraid it will be even worse.  Do the
>: current shadowrun character quotes and death lines etc. belong in the .misc
>: group or would they belong in the .cyber group under your proposal?
>
>  It is for the poster to decide if it's cyberpunk specific or of
>general interest to all roleplayers. Were I to play only fantasy and
>superhero genres, I wouldn't be so interested in campaign plots
>concerning megacorps, character ideas involving cybernetic
>modifications, or discussion about smartgun links.

I don't know why you wouldn't be interested.  It's not at all hard to turn
a "megacorp" into a political faction out for something in a fantasy game, or
a cybernetic modification into a magic spell or monster, a hero with a tragic
flaw, or an enemy with an unusual power.  One is only limited to one's own
imagination, and if one insists on looking only at things that fit within the
genre one is currently playing, the game may be less unique that it could be.
I've never (technically) played a cyber game, yet I read _all_ the posts on
campaigns and ideas etc.  I only skip game-specific discussions.  If the split
goes across these discussions, it'll be much harder to find the good stuff, and
harder to see how ohter gm's and players would modify them to fit into other
types of campaigns as there is less cross-generation of ideas.
>  I can't think of a genre I don't play, so this is not 'I want a group
>with only the discussion I like' RFD. The only r.g.f group I don't read
>is .dnd.

I don't really read the dnd group either, and this is what I worry about in
a split.  People who play "cyber" games would read that group and not the
others and people who don't _won't_ read it, and we all will miss a lot of
good stuff that way.  The dnd group is huge.  It's hard to keep up with and
unless you play that game, there is a _lot_ there one doesn't want to see.
Yet there are some really good ideas there (witness the wonderful "gods in
your campaign thread" that came from there).  Cross-posting doesn't really
help that much tho.  Either the lead-in post is the only one cross-posted
and thus the discussion goes on separately in two places, and the ideas aren't
well disseminated, or a lot of posts are cross-posted, wasting bandwidth etc.
This would be (in my opinion) worse in a "genre" based split.  There are a 
many places where shadowrun crosses with fantasy games.  And many places where
Gurps cyber and cyber hero cross with other Gurps and cyber games.  It's 
harder to separate and define the separation.  Dnd _needed_ it's own group.
I'm not convinced shadowrun does, but some people disagree.  If it does, I 
hope it doesn't go as a "genre" split, but rather as a game-specific split.
I think the differentiation is important.

>easier to read them. I can begin reading a group and know beforehand
>what to expect.

As an aside, I think the more separated things get, the harder they are for
new users to find.  If I had just joined usenet, and was looking for
roleplaying groups, I can imagine greping through the list looking for
roleplaying or dnd, or mebbe a specifc game.  I can't imagine looking for
cyber.  It just wouldn't occur to me.  Mebbe others would tho, I dunno.  
				Laura Mollett

>Elandal		(aka Ismo Peltonen)			| Hanuripolku 5B15
>home (UUCP)	elandal@archtwr.tower.NullNet.FI	| 00420 Helsinki
>Univ (internet)	ipeltone@cc.Helsinki.FI			| FINLAND
>data		+358-0-5072005			voice	+358-0-537515


Newsgroups: news.groups