The Campaign Builder's Guild

So, I'm a little bit torn here.

Part of me wants to say that this boundary-discussion of where one genre starts and another ends is also a distraction and a digression from the questions in the original post, and belongs in another thread.

Another part of me insists that this little mini-debate is a necessary prerequisite step (can't discuss the mixing of paints until we can recognize our primary colors), and that the debate itself is a testament to the power of Phoenix's initial premises.

Dilemma, indeed.

Quote from: SteerpikeWhat would you call them?  I think of the gruff, subterannean dwarf, the effete, nature-loving elf, the bestial orc, etc as character tropes.  You can change all the characteristcis of a race and still call them elves or dwarves, I suppose, which is one way of playing with the tropes.

I think of elves and dwarves the same way I think about swords, spaceships, etc... As content (as opposed to tropes).

Tropes to me are the models the stories are built on*, like how Asimov's robot stories are more like techno-mysteries, with a problem the protagonist has to solve. Or the clear good vs clear evil duking it out over the fate of the world in high fantasy (clearly a bigger deal than the specific fantasy content, to the point where you can recognise Star Wars as having fantasy tropes and science fiction content). Or the ambiguous morality of sword and sorcery (which is so much more important than all wizards being evil and a tribe of lizardmen). Or the travelogue format story that drives all kinds of classic science fiction.

So Ghost in the Shell, Star Wars, and Isaac Asimov short stories all have robots. Not a whole lot changes about the robots, but the stories are all significantly different because the robots have a different place in the world and the story in each case.

Star Wars, War of the Worlds, and Star Trek all have aliens. But their place in the world and in the stories changes the way we see them significantly.

Twilight and Underworld both have vampires. Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings both have wizards. Monk and Sherlock Holmes are both detectives. Call of Cthulhu and the King in Yellow both have cosmic horror. You're getting that I think the what is less significant than the how and why?

*Or if I'm using the words wrong, I still think it's important to differentiate between the classic models the story is built on and the set dressing that usually accompanies it. D&D pulls high fantasy set dressing but is built with a sword and sorcery mindset at its core.

I can see your point.  The only thing I can add is that I don't see dwarves & elves or even swords or spaceships as essential to any of the genres they are often found in.  I've read lots of good fantasy with a minimum of swords in it (Perdido Street Station, for example) and good sci fi without spaceships (Neuromancer).

I'd add to Silvercat Moonpaw that while I totally agree that horror can constitute a style of storytelling (sometimes linked to the "Suspense" genre), I'd argue that it also constitutes a genre in and of itself in the same sense as fantasy and sci fi - a genre with roots primarily in the gothic.  As I said earlier, though, I think all of the major speculative fiction catgeories are more trouble than their worth.  Since, however, we're stuck with them, really, I think my answer is to willfully and self-consciously violate generic boundaries are shamelessly as possible, to avoid generic stagnation.

It is interesting that while horror is something that is ultimately defined by plot, we still tend to recognize "horror elements" that can be used in the construction of a setting. The choise of words and tone in textual descriptions can also be used to set a horror-esque mood. A setting could have neither of these and still be perfectly viable for the telling of a horror story, but some settings incorporate either or both with the intent of being horror settings.

It seems that, as long as we're going to describe fictional works in terms of genres, we should take care to treat the genres of settings as separate from the genres of stories and games taking place in these settings. The former will probably influence the genres of the latter though.

Quote from: SteerpikeI can see your point.  The only thing I can add is that I don't see dwarves & elves or even swords or spaceships as essential to any of the genres they are often found in.  I've read lots of good fantasy with a minimum of swords in it (Perdido Street Station, for example) and good sci fi without spaceships (Neuromancer).

I'd add to Silvercat Moonpaw that while I totally agree that horror can constitute a style of storytelling (sometimes linked to the "Suspense" genre), I'd argue that it also constitutes a genre in and of itself in the same sense as fantasy and sci fi - a genre with roots primarily in the gothic.  As I said earlier, though, I think all of the major speculative fiction catgeories are more trouble than their worth.  Since, however, we're stuck with them, really, I think my answer is to willfully and self-consciously violate generic boundaries are shamelessly as possible, to avoid generic stagnation.
[/quote]
See, I've always seen a horror setting as a little weird. Horror adventures I like, and I suppose it's best to include content in the setting that will facilitate horror adventures down the road, but horror doesn't necessarily need to have the same set dressing every time, and can easily use things that already exist in the setting.

As far as types of horror in a fantasy game, I think suspense works best in an RPG. Slasher stuff not as much because ultraviolence is just so standard in a session. Also I think suspense forces you to identify with the character more, but I'd have a hard time explaining why.

I'd say that as the genre boundaries lie now, horror appears more "flexibile" than fantasy and sci fi.  My point is that fantasy and sci fi are infinitely flexible as well: they should be boundless.  The "assumptions, conventions, and tropes" attached to speculative fiction can be useful tools, but just as easily they can stifle originality and invention.

Obviously this is just a personal preference or opinion: my favorite stuff (fiction or roleplaying settings) is usually the hybrid stuff, the weird stuff, the stuff that refuses to be neatly categorized.

To bring the thread back to the original post, with my own opinionated views...

[blockquote=Phoenix]In world design, it can be hard to get a grip on a truly alien world. To what degree do you like to exploit the expectations of genre? To what degree do you embrace them? Toss them out entirely?[/blockquote]I like to subvert or exploit the expectations of genre and deconstruct generic assumptions, while stealing elements from many different genres in order to create a pastiche (some might say mismatched) appeal.  I have no desire to craft anything of generic "purity" because this essentially equates to simply emulating those seminal works that defined the genre boundaries in the first place (masterpieces in their own right, and rarely imitated well) and contributes to genre rigidity and stagnation.  Where a genre boundary or convention is inconvenient, restrictive, or unappealing it is thrown unceremoniously out.[blockquote=ibid.]Do you prefer reading in a setting with familiar elements or something radically different?[/blockquote]Either familiar elements subverted or radically unfamiliar elements, or both, ideally speaking. [blockquote=ibid.]Tropes becomes tropes because they work, right? So which ones are most overdone? Which ones are so much staples of a genre that they don't offend?[/blockquote]My biggest pet peeve trope is medieval stasis.[blockquote=ibid.]Blending genres is another risky move. Risk can mean big payoff, or falling flat. How do you like blended genres (i.e. space western). Which genres would you never enjoy blended?[/blockquote]I like to blend the three speculative genres together.  Comedy is sometimes a welcome element.  I really appreciate the Historical aspects to things like A Song of Ice and Fire (which, sadly, might also be suffering slightly from medieval stasis, though honestly we don't know enough about the far past to completely make that judgement).

Quote from: PhoenixIn world design, it can be hard to get a grip on a truly alien world. To what degree do you like to exploit the expectations of genre? To what degree do you embrace them? Toss them out entirely?

For Urbis, I exploit the hell out of them.

The whole setting premise is rather unconventional for fantasy (the magical industrial revolution, the huge cities...). Thus, I make use of as many established tropes and themes as possible to help players and game masters ease into the setting.

Yet that doesn't mean that all those tropes remain unaltered - they changed and grew under the influence of the setting assumptions until they became something new, while still remaining somewhat recognizable.

How does a stereotypical Elven Island Paradise in the Western Ocean adapt to the modern world after its vaunted Navy was pwned by a human fleet with better technology? How do all those fantasy races adjust to life in big human cities? Assuming that wizards want to make a living just like anyone else, how does magic change society? What does it mean for society if resurrection magic is available, though expensive?

All these are very fascinating questions - yet I wouldn't be able to ask them if I hadn't started out with all the familiar fantasy, RPG, and D&D tropes. And having these tropes in the first place has saved me a lot of work - if I had wanted to create a setting as complex from the ground up, it would be a lot of work for the players to even understand the basics of the world.

A fresh take on an old trope can be very enjoyable, but it's also very difficult to accomplish. The biggest problems to me are not the tropes I dislike - I can simply dump them or modify them as much as I like without any hard feelings. It's the tropes I like that cause the headaches. How do I go about changing, mutilating for the sake of freshness, something that I already find enjoyable? Alter things too much and it easily loses it's original appeal; alter too little and it won't be enough.

It's tempting to just not bother at all...

Quote from: SteerpikeMy biggest pet peeve trope is medieval stasis.

This means an absense of changes in technology and social structures over a very long time interval, particularly in pseudomedieval settings, doesn't it? If I got that right, I can certainly see why it would be a problem for a setting, but what justifies calling it a trope? Is it really that common? Could you point out some good examples?

I definitely prefer stories that remain largely true to their genre but make small minor changes I generally prefer to know what I'm getting into.

But, many tropes can be very overused. For example, just after I finished reading "Hobbit" and "Lord of the Rings" (I tried to read Silmarillion, three times now, and I cannot do it) I read "Sword of Shannara" by Terry Brooks. There are a few elements that are almost exactly like parts from Lord of the Rings, namely a demonic horde attacking a city which ends up feeling like the battle of helm's deep. Joe Nobody who becomes a great hero is also quite overused, and now I only like to see it when something is being written with the full intention of following classic Epic style.

I prefer a story to not require an essay to be read to understand what you're getting into. If something comes up like "the elves of blank-world are twenty feet tall, blue, feast upon the raw flesh of humans, and build steam-punk skyscrapers", I'm going to ask "why are they called elves" (twenty foot tall blue steam-punk cannibals sound really f'n creepy in my current lack of sleep).

As for blended genres, I have been enjoying them more and more. The two most recent books I have read were "Kushiel's Dart", which was a blend of fantasy and erotic romance (and was set in a fantasy version of renaissance Europe, with a healthy blend of Christian and Pagan imagery), and the first book of the "Iron Elves" trilogy, which comes off as a blend of fantasy and historic fiction (the writer is very clearly a fan of Napoleon era wars; the last ten chapters or so have been following an army trudging through a jungle, and it's not boring!). I also like my sci-fi to be riddled with allegory (the only genre I can stand allegory in interestingly enough).

For my own writing, I'm seeking to write in a fantasy universe using science fiction style. Science Fiction stories typically focus on a "what if" or a "how will *the other* affect society", where *the other* is aliens, super technology, robots, AI, or anything out of the norm. For my own setting, one of the big focuses is on how magic and non-human races would alter the world. Individual stories are still focusing on the heroes journey, an element of fantasy, but that's something difficult to avoid (nor would I want to).

For Ghostman: Medieval Stasis.

[blockquote=Kapn]I prefer a story to not require an essay to be read to understand what you're getting into. If something comes up like "the elves of blank-world are twenty feet tall, blue, feast upon the raw flesh of humans, and build steam-punk skyscrapers", I'm going to ask "why are they called elves" (twenty foot tall blue steam-punk cannibals sound really f'n creepy in my current lack of sleep).[/blockquote]Agreed: calling them elves is silly.  I'd rather read a story about them than another story about elves, though, and they're no less "fantasy" than elves; or, to put it another why, I'd personally rather see a new setting with these guys than another setting with elves again.  They do sound suspiciously like Victorian Ogre Magi, though.

[blockquote=Ghosttoastyman]

Quote from: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MedievalStasistcvtropes/med stasis[/url].  yes it is pretty common.

Basically the problem is not the stasis so much as it is a lack of sufficent explanation for it. Martin's long seasons are an example.  I carefully explain the development of magic as a substitute advancement specifically to account for the creative urge and lack of purely scientific progress in Celtricia.  I can see why this trope makes Steerpike crazy, as it does myself.  It is sometimes very jarring when a setting falls into this trap.

 

Quote from: SteerpikeMy biggest pet peeve trope is medieval stasis.

I get curious when people bring this up: Is there a maximum limit to how long you're willing to allow the stasis?  And what about the reverse: would development/change be just as bad if it happened faster than Earth logic provides for?

I can't think of a precise figure, but anytime I hear mention of thousands of years of history (like, 2000+) without any significant technological changes, I frown a little.  Justified medieval stasis is more acceptable, but can still be irksome, at times.

I'd have some of the same problems with a too-fast changing society from a logical standpoint, but at least in a society where changes are occuring there's an acknowledgement that technological development does occur, even if the timeline is skewed.  One of my problems with medieval stasis is that it seems lazy as well as unrealistic: it's much easier for a creator to just keep everything the same and stick their fingers in their ears when developing a history than it is to map out actual technological progress.  That said, there are some worlds that suffer from stasis that I like for so many other reasons that I can tolerate the stasis (Westeros being the prime example).

Couldn't the minerals available in a given world prevent certain metallurgical advances? Couldn't fossil fuels (outside of coal) have never happened?

Medieval stasis can happen if we don't assume earth as a baseline.

Medieval stasis is one of the standard tropes which I deliberately dropped from Urbis. The whole setting is essentially an exploration of the idea: "What if medieval stasis didn't hold in a typical fantasy setting?"