Thalaba

Luckily you don't need to spell 90% of the words right for 90% of the people to still understand what you're trying to say!

Nobody said that the 90% rule applied to all things. But it does apply to things like genres, language (as Rust pointed out), fashion, which stars are sexy, which figure skaters are the best, and which jokes are funny, and which anything is more popular. And that's the first time I've ever seriously seen someone try to equate RPGs with rocket science. And there was a time when 90% of the people believed that 90% of the people once believed the world was flat! But nobody believes that anymore!

I think we've established that there are no 'official' terms to classify a genre. Some things only exist because most people define them that way, and that appears to be the case for genres. This means that a 'genre' is whatever most people agree it is. I'm sorry to say, but if 'most people' have a the same idea of what a genre is - then that's probably what it is Maybe we can write a letter to encourage the creation of the United Nations Genre Labelling, Understanding, and Education Department, or something. Which brings us back to Simon's original question: Isn't it all Sci-Fi? Most people around here (including Shaira) seem to agree that there are different types of sci-fi. So yes, it's all sci-fi, but not all the same kind of sci-fi. So say we all (I think). (@Dragonnewt: Well said!)

OK - just for the record: My name isn't Simon, it's Chris. I was thanking Simon (the OP) for starting the discussion, but I can see how that got mis-read. By the way, I thought we were always talking more about gaming than literature, which is why I'm not sure if what literary pundits are relevant here. It's also why I don't like the idea of genre being classified by having more or less emphasis on characterization or plot. So I still think that Genre is really classified by Setting, as per my graph, or mood (as per the Horror 'genre') or a combination of the two 'gritty fantasy' vs. 'heroic fantasy' or 'Cthulhu' vs. 'Pulp Cthulhu'. In your example, (which few people would recognize as sci-fi by the way, though that's beside the point) you are still establishing the genre by defining the setting. You are establishing the rules of the game world: just like ancient Rome, but with gunpowder. That's setting. After all this discussion, this echoes my thoughts on the matter, too. I can see now why there is a lot of confusion over genre (because genres are created haphazardly by industry people, and the academics who would normally classify things deny that they exist).

Maybe try it by yourself or with one other person first, then feel free to ask us questions afterward. Looking at the section in the BRP book, I see they've changed things from RQ3, so if you find there's something you don't like about those rules, someone can give you a different way of doing it. Sure, although it will get complicated with 10-15 characters if they are fighting each other because a bunch of them will end up doing things simultaneously. With 10-15 NPCs, though, it's a piece of cake. I ran a combat recently with 5 PCs, 2 player NPCs, one main villain, and 50 henchmen. All the henchmen had the same stats, so it wasn't too hard to keep track of them. It looks like that got left out. Here's a summary from our houserules: Time to Perform Actions: Dislodging an impaling weapon: 3 SR Stringing a bow 1 MR Drawing/Sheathing a weapon 3 SR Carefully dropping an item 1 SR Carelessly dropping an item 0 SR Bracing for knockback 3 SR Mounting/Dismounting a steed: 3 SR Leaping Mount/Dismount: 1 SR If I can find the time for it, I may well do that.

Your post prompts me to ask more questions and probably make wildly incorrect assertions, but what the hell! I don't have any background in the field literature at all, but I like to learn new things and share ideas. I'm sure genres are imagined by the consumer. Consumers pick of things and try them. Some they like and some they don't. They try to classify things so that the next time they buy what they like and not what they don't like by accident. As a consumer myself who doesn't want to buy campy, comedy fantasy supplements (for instance) I'd like to know what kind of 'fantasy' is being presented in a new book. I really only care about what genres mean in the market place, because I don't buy my books or games from literature professors. Not to denegrate them at all, but if their opinions are not reflected in the packaging or shelving decisions of book marketers and book sellers, then they probably don't have much bearing on my purchasing decisions. 'Horror' is considered a genre by the marketplace, as is 'mystery' - neither of which is defined by setting. What makes 'horror' and 'mystery' what they are? I suggested the word 'mood' as an important aspect, but if that's not the right word, what is it? If there are no genre conventions, then how do we know when a story about murder is a 'mystery', a 'horror', or just a story that has a murder in it? What's the difference between 'gritty' fantasy and 'heroic' fantasy if not the mood portrayed by the setting? If the Investigators investigate a murder by deep ones it's horror, but if the keystone cops investigate the same murder at the same time and in the same place it's a comedy. Are all these supposed genres just catch-phrases thrown out willy nilly by marketing people? Why do books stores put some books in the 'fiction' section and others in the 'literature' section? How do 'serious analysts' categorize things, and if their way is better why hasn't the market caught on? If horror is about characterization and romance is about plot and fantasy is about setting, then what is a novel that has all three? Aren't good romances also about characterization in equal measure with plot? Stories that simply have plot with characterization are usually called 'one-dimensional'. If story elements define the genre, then how do you apply genre to RPGs, where the story is determined during play and not preconceived by the GM. Good discussion by the way. Thanks Simon!

Hmm. Some genres seem to be defined by setting (time, place, and other setting elements such as the existence of magic): Hard SF, Fantasy, Western. Other genres conventions are defined by mood: Horror, Gritty, Heroic. Really, shouldn't a genre consist of both a setting and a mood? By labelling both settings and moods alone as genres, have we left ourselves open to a confusion of terms?

Just a thought...

What would a 'generic' sci fi monograph include, out of curiosity?

I applaud the star review system. The page looks fine, but I can't interact with it, so all I can say is you're off to a good start.

Conrad, have you been drinking?

You make a good argument - nihilistic was probably the wrong word, since I was thinking more about the end of existence than the lack of existence. I was merely trying to say that the CoC game draws people that appreciate that kind of thing (inevitable doom). CoC has a reputation in the industry (justified or not) for promoting the downward spiral if characters into insanity and death. There is also the idea that no matter what the characters do, the world will still eventually end when Cthulhu rises. I'm just speculating that this perceived focus on endings in the CoC game might attract the same kind of crowd as a post apocalyptic game (which focusses on what happens during and after the end).

These Norwegian 'scientists' will also likely not be surprised when Cthulhu rises from the deep, I would surmise, saying they knew the Kraken was there all along.

I separate them because they are two different poles of a continuum. Hard SF is more science oriented and draws on know physics. Space Fantasy dispenses with the science for the most part, and extrapolates a future without bothering with how technology functions. I think the two are very different. I suppose technically, something like Star Wars isn't really science fiction at all, since it has little science in it - it's more akin to fantasy. But a lot of people lump the two together, and even lump fantasy and sci-fi together (like they do in smaller bookstores), and I suppose they are all 'speculative fiction' (although what fiction isn't speculative, really?). For sci-fi I really only have those two categories. I don't think that space opera is just a term for a long, multi-world spanning story and could fall almost anywhere on the continuum. I see this categorization paralleled in the 'history genre', where you have 'factual history' at one end and 'alt history' at the other. And I think there are many types of fantasy, too. So many types that they defy easy categorization. Science fantasy (star wars), techno-fantasy (gamma world), modern fantasy (nephilim), dark fantasy (warhammer), high fantasy (ars magica, also alt history), classic fantasy (d&d), traditional fantasy (tolkien), gritty fantasy (harn), something called 'magic realism', and so on. Some defy categorization (mechanical dream). Why the need for categorization? Because when I have the itch for something technical and scientific, I don't want to read Star Wars. When I have the itch to explore history, I don't want to see a bunch of near eastern sorcerers on the Odessa steps levitating all the baby carriages out of harms way. We are no longer in an era when fans of genre fiction must be happy with what little we can get, no matter the style. We are now spoiled for choice, and I, for one, choose to exercise that choice.

Speaking to Strike Ranks: BRP strike ranks are very different from an initiative system, such as what D&D has. With an initiative system, you basically determine who goes first and then run through everybody's actions one by one until every one has gone, and then you start the round again. Each person's actions are completed all at once on their turn. The strike rank system instead divided the round up into ten segments. There are no player 'turns'. Each action that a player can perform starts on a specific strike rank and lasts for 1 or more strike ranks. When the action starts and how long it takes depends on what the action is. The time it takes for a PC to perform an action depends on their dex, their size, and other things factor in like weapon length, spell power, and how far they move. If everybody performs the same action each round, then 'who goes when' is always the same. But someone can change which strike rank they act on by changing their activity (such as chosing a weapon with better reach, or moving, or casting a spell instead of stabbing), and because of this it becomes quite a tactical game. What's more, each round evolves organically. In D&D 3.5 for instance (initiative system), let's say Burly Bob is facing the Black Knight (BK) on the field of battle and they are 10M apart. Either Bob will go first and run toward the BK, expending his whole turn running and then he will wait while the BK tries to hit him on the BK's turn. Or, if the BK has initiative, the BK will go first and charge down Bob. Bob can't run away, because it's not his turn. But in RQ both would start moving early in the round (say on strike rank 3). If they run towards each other, they will meet somewhere in the middle, striking each other about 2 strike ranks later (on 5). The Black Knight would strike first (his long spear is the longer weapon) and Bob would strike 2 two strike ranks later with his short sword. On the other hand, bob could choose to run away. He might be able to run to the nearest rock and hide behind it before the BK can reach him. Or he might set a spear vs. the charge of the BK, in which case Bob would go first with his spear before the BK could get him with the lance. Or he could cast a spell that might go off before BK reaches his position. Each of these choices might have Bob going at a different time in the round. So, basically, the GM calls out the strike ranks in a round from 1 to 10. Each player decides their action and when the right strike rank is called out, they say their action. A single character might have all of these options (and more) in a round: Start moving on SR2 (this action lasts until the PC stops moving) Start casting a spell on SR2 (this action lasts as many MP are in the spell) Shoot an arrow on SR2 Attack with a long spear on SR5 Attack with a broadsword on SR6 Attack with a dagger on SR7 If they shot an arrow on SR2, they can shoot a second on SR7 If two opponents both attack on the same strike rank, then the attacks are considered simultaneous. It probably sounds a bit complicated at first, but like anything once you play through it a few times it becomes intuitive. It's more complicated than an initiative system, but it also simulates battle more realistically - and that's the trade-off. The MRQ1 'strike ranks', by the way, are NOT the same as BRP strike ranks - in effect that is an initiative system. I'm not sure about MRQ2. Hope that helps, but feel free to ask more questions.

Yeah - couple of interesting things. This first two BRP books had a lot of pulpy adventures in them, and yet there are no votes for pulp on the poll. Is that because people got their fill in the first two books? History here is getting the top nod, whereas a Chaosium it's well down. Now, they have something like 1700 votes, so their sample is much larger, but still. I can sense a strong desire here for historical material. There have been a few threads in the past few months regarding historical material, and they've been quite popular. The recent thread about fantasy worlds not so much. I think if it wasn't for the interest that Classic Fantasy has generated outside of BRP, sci-fi would be preferred in this poll to fantasy, too. Is there a correlation between liking BRP and liking history or sci-fi? I think there is with regards to history - I think BRP, with its gritty nature, is one of the best RPGs for playing history, so it seems natural that fans of history end up here. For the same reason, would it be inappropriate to guess that BRP fans would prefer hard SF to space fantasy? Maybe post apocalyptic is more popular at chaosium because CoC already draws a crowd that appreciates the nihilistic? Or maybe because historical, sci-fi, and fantasy are already served by CoC. Are there any post apoc. CoC monographs?

Well, he's not the only one. I remember a species maximum of max+min being applied, too, and I've never read nor played RQ2. But I just looked in the AHRQ3 book and errata and couldn't find the rule - so whaddya know. And here I was hoping that I would finally catch you on a rule! (new smileys! )

New life forms turning up in Antarctica, according to a recent article. Six hundred feet (183 metres) below the ice where no light shines, scientists had figured nothing much more than a few microbes could exist. That is why a team from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration was surprised when they lowered a video camera to get the first long look at the underbelly of an ice sheet in Antarctica. A curious shrimp-like creature came swimming by and then parked itself on the camera's cable. Scientists also pulled up a tentacle they believe came from a foot-long jellyfish. Sure it was from a jellyfish! When the shrimp was later reached for comment by reporters, it had this to say: "Tekeli-li" EDIT: Link to article: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100315/science/science_us_sci_antarctica_sea_life_1

We use the strike ranks option, which come from RQ. I'm not 100% sure they're the same in BRP, but in RQ you would knock your first arrow and fire on your dex strike rank (2 or 3 usually), then reload and fire again on your dex SR+3. In effect most people can fire two missiles in a round, either on ranks 2 and 7 or on 3 and 9 (out of 10 in a round).

Isn't "The Morrow Project" also BRP based? I've heard that's quite good, but never seen it.

They were selling the Elric stuff on Chaosium's site, but only Corum and Perils of the Young Kingdoms are left. You might also check online mail order catalogues as they might still have some stuff in print. Second edition Gloranthan material might be available at Issaries.com, and some you can find in game shops or on-line here and there.

One challenging and time consuming project at a time is all I can afford, my friend!

I would add the two Cthulhu Invictus adventure monographs - Extrico Tabula and Malum Umbra. The various secrets books are pretty good, too.

When you finally get your copy of BRP ADVENTURES and THE RIVER TERROR you'll find out.

I really like Oscar's Invictus adventure monographs so far (still reading) so I would definitely pick up a new book of them. I find them broadly applicable to fantasy, not just Cthulhu, which is good. But my interest in seeing Rome supplements actually has more to do with seeing adventures done in an old historical period that weren't heavily supernatural. Pete's talked about doing something like that in the future, so I remain hopeful. 20 years of interesting history. Historical maps are actually useful to players (and therefore likely post medieval). Transliteration required, so the maps are not only in a different language, but a different alphabet. 19th C. Kick. Hmmm.... Chinese Gordon and The Taiping Rebellion?