From: darknite@camelot.bradley.edu (John S. Novak III)
Subject: Re: Genres
Organization: Bradley University
Date: 22 Jul 92 02:08:06 GMT

Deep Six writes:

>> 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. 

Do you really expect any game system to provide you with
everything you could possibly need to run the game?  Instead of
creating new monsters, in an SF game, it boils down into creating
new NPCs  (Yes, monsters are NPCs, and as far as I'm concerned
should _all_ be relatively unique).

The flaw you perceive is a flaw with _a_ setting in the fantasy
genre.  Maybe even with several or most settings in the genre.
But just as you can take something in a fantasy genre, give
insufficient attention to it and make a non-workable scenario,
you can do the same thing in SF.  ("Uh, yeah, let's play
something set in 1994, where the Soviet Coup was successful, but
until then, nothing else changed-- same coup members, same
actions taken, same resources available, but it worked anyway.")

Also, you're hung up on historical accuracy, instead of realism.
The two are not the same.  Historical accuracy means that the
system makes a reasonable emulation of some historical situation.
Realism just means that every has to make sense, given the basic
assumptions.  (And usually, the assumptions shouldn't be _too_
wild.)  What if the entire point is to explore a culture clash
that could never have happened in the real world?  Or how a
culture that the GM has created would interact with others?  As
long as the inherent contrdictions approach zero, the scenario is
realistic (which means, adequated government, military, social
and economic infrastructure, etc.)

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

You know, at the time, I forgot to point out how incredibly
judgemental that statement was...

>> 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.

Because the differences are what make it _fun_.  The point of an
historic parallel that close, but based in fantasy, would
probably revel in the differences that the existance of magic and
_true_ racial differences could make.

(BTW, you come dangerously close to declaring this discussion
over, by coming dangerously close to the H- name....)

>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. 

Again, you're too preoccupied with a meticulous attention to
history.  Just because our medieval culture had such wide class
separations doesn't mean that a fantasy game setting will, as
well.  As I have _repeatedly_ bashed into my history-major
roommate's head, "Fantasy =/= medieval"

>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.

Only from your standpoint.
And you have a markedly different definition of 'realism' than I
seem to.

>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..

Because _my_ fun as a GM is designing worlds.
And incidentally, when I design a campaign setting, I don't need
a rule book.  I bend the rules to my creation, not the other way
around.

--
"Oh, I got it, I get it!  Maybe I'll have to start reading the book!"
          -Robert Parker, 10-20-91
John S. Novak, III		darknite@camelot.bradley.edu