From: lmollett@lunatix.uucp (Laura Mollett)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: META: Game Mechanics vs. Background
Date: 23 Dec 92 15:20:48 GMT
Organization: Lexington Public Access Unix. -KY- (606) 255-9121

In article <18835@mindlink.bc.ca> Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes:
>gt0040a@prism.gatech.EDU (Tom Sorensen) writes:
[much deleted]
>
>As one person pointed out, I shouldn't have used the word "genre" where I
>did; it's confusing.  I had in mind the "gaming style and background" part,
>which might better be termed "feel".  Hero might be suitable for many genres,
>but not for many "feels".  Even you limit it to "heroic stuff".  That does
>not make it a generic game system; it might make it a generic heroic style
>system.

Hello there,
	The difference between "gaming styles" and "genres" is one that our
group has recently come to appreciate.  Apparently, although we enjoy playing
many different "genres", we actually only enjoy one "gaming style" or "feel".
My husband recently ran a game which he felt to be a disaster (the rest of
us disagree, but...:) that was a post-holocaust campaign.  He felt the game
went off-base (he lost control) because he left the tech level too high, and
that he really only enjoys GMing "fantasy" games.  I disagreed with that, as
he had run a vietnam-era game that went really well ...almost as high tech.
Through the discussion we came to realise that we had added two players with
a more "scientific" bent.  While we enjoy tech games, the normal party was
inclined to treat "tech" in much the same way as magic and deal with it as   
"it works" or "it doesn't work"..."it exists" or "it doesn't exist".  This
included a lot of suspension of disbelief, and very little interest in
"realism".  The new players were much more interested in what would be possible,
what could happen, and when etc...and this lead to long in-game discussions
or "reality" which my husband felt broke the "feel" of the game (the role-
play) much as rules discussions do.  We decided that while we like science
fantasy and cyber "genres", we don't like realistic gaming styles.  (To each
his own, of course :).
>
[more deleted]
>
>I'd rather play in three different well-developed game rule systems
>(optimized for backgrounds or "feels") with depth, even though it means
>learning three systems, than in one vague, shallow, generic rules system for
>all three backgrounds.  This assumes an average GM, not that rare critter:
>"the GM who can run a great game with no rules or background material".  :)

We prefer the generic system that suits our "gaming style" and allows us to
change "genres" without changing that "style".  Actually we prefer easy,
not too complicated rules systems that will deal with almost anything, so
we can create the detailed background and characters that we want.  I have
the feeling that we would almost move to a systemless game, but that's just
a bit too much for our GM's.  We want something that will settle minor disputes,
and we _like_ rolling dice, something that will give us "stats" etc. for our
characters, but we don't want the mechanics to be too complicated.  And _I_
hate changing mechanics all the time.  I'm more interested in the backgrounds
and stories and role-playing elements.  Of course, our games have a rather
higher ratio of women to men than a lot of games, and perhaps this has
something to do with it (and maybe a _lot_ to do with my dislike of 
complicated rulesystems <grin>).
			Laura Mollett
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc