From: sl9b4@cc.usu.edu (Deep Six)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: Genres
Date: 21 Jul 92 02:11:13 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <darknite.711593958@camelot>, 
 darknite@camelot.bradley.edu (John S. Novak III) writes:
> Deep Six writes:

>>Now take D&D. Sure, it has elements from history (knights, kingdoms, some
>>mythology). But for the most part it is just on big cartoony conglomeration
>>of fake, made up, even GOOFY shit.

> This is not an inherent flaw in the game itself, or in the genre
> itself. Even AD&D can be made into a fairly realistic
> setting, if you take some care in creating things.  Just because
> Greyhawk is out there doesn't mean you have to use it, and just
> because there are stats for a Tarrasque doesn't mean you have to
> include it in your game.

I think it IS an inherent flaw in the game itself. Sure, I could say,
``Well, those monsters aren't in European mythology, so I am making my
own.'' Then I'd say, ``This world isn't historical, I'm going to create
my own.'' Then I'd say, ``These character types aren't realistic...'' And
so on, until all I'd be left with is a bunch of books filled with rules
that I'd rewritten and changed, or replaced with portions of other games.
So, yes, I think AD&D  is flawed in that way. Why change things about the
game when you'll end up basically making your own game up? No offense to
you AD&Ders, a lot of other games suck, too. 

> I, however, prefer GURPS because I like the rules better, and
> because when I want to play some other genre I don't have to go
> buy more systems.  Maybe another rule book within GURPS (if I
> want to) but not an entire system. 

I have to agree with you here. I am at this point right now. It's the 
only game I've found (not that I've tried them all) that lets me do things
``my way'' without extensive rewriting or system mixing.

>> The only good fantasy is based to some extent (more the better for me) 
>> on reality or history. 

> Based in reality?  Yes, I tend to agree. Based in history?  Not necessarily. 
> I myself favor historical parallels (I like reading history myself) because 
> I can make them as close to or as far from history as I desire.  

Okay, more word play here. What you call historical parallels are what I 
would call based in history (like if an Orc empire's rise to power parallels 
that of the Nazi empire). But toward that my attitude is -- if you want to 
recreate the intrigue, adventure and excitement of WWII (or whatever), why 
not just role-play in Nazi Germany rather than paralleling it with some other
setting? Personal preference of course, but the point is there.

> And the general joy in any game, I have found, involves keeping the 
> characters from predicting exactly what they're up against.  This applies 
> to _all_ games, not just fantasy.

Well, that is A joy of any game, but not THE joy of any game. For me, the
major rush comes in the form of vivid recreation (or vivid portrayal in 
fictional settings). I whince when I hear people say stuff like, ``it's
only a game and the point is to have fun.'' Yeah, it is a game and it is
fun, but I think role-playing is an activity more comparable to watching a
movie or reading a book. The object is not just to have fun, it's to be 
absorbed, distracted and entertained. This is really getting away from the
original discussion -- somebody can change the subject line anytime here..

>>I would argue that those are games which will have some basis in reality. 
> 
> Who ever said that you can't have fantasy games at least
> partially based in reality?  Fantasy versus SF is by no means a
> binary on-off switch.

I didn't say that, my point is that fantasy games which are designed and
played realistically are few and far between. I said the same things about
science fiction. The premise of most fantasy and science fiction games are
just shaky justifications for the players to play. Adventuring parties are
a perfect example. What in the hell would an elf thief be doing hanging 
around with a human knight? Where are the class seperations? And what about
female PCs? In reality, females MIGHT come into play, but only as concubines,
peasants or helpless royalty (with the occasional exception for your Florance
Nightengales and your Joans of Arc). Female flamers back off: I had nothing
to do with world history. 

I'm not arguing that any genre is superior (although I strongly prefer those
which are taken directly from present, historical or ``future history.''). I 
am arguing that games which make use of as much realism as possible are
superior. Further, most fantasy and sci fi games have a hollow, unrealistic 
ring, and that the only way to lend real depth to these games is to rewrite, 
change or subsitute the rules. So, why not just plant yourself in a real
world setting (i.e. T:2000, Recon, GURPS High Tech, Top Secret, etc.)? I 
know, personal preference, but the point is there..

Okay,
--                                              __  __   ______   __  __ 
Chadd  L. VanZanten  SL9B4@CC.USU.EDU   +   /\ \/\ \ /\  ___\ /\ \/\ \
``Gentlemen!  You  can't  fight in here,   +   \ \ \_\ \\ \___  \\ \ \_\ \
this is the War Room!''                    +    \ \_____\\/\_____\\ \_____\
     --Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove   +     \/_____/ \/_____/ \/_____/ 
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc