D&D is its own Genre of Fantasy?

[buzz]

Han is a hero when Luke is not around and a foil when Luke is there.

Han isn't a hero because Luke is present in a scene?

Media will shift focus on different characters because it's not possible, as far as I know, for human beings to focus on two things at once. I don't think that stops us, over the course of a story, from following more than a single character with a significant arc.

And just as having Luke get killed only to be replaced by some other Jedi or completely different character who smoothly takes over Luke's role would be a jarring thing that happens all the time in a game, having a major character go off screen for an extended time is completely normal in fiction but isn't typical for gaming.

The former is definitely problematic for fiction. The latter is done in some RPGs, though not many mainstream ones.

Zander was the hero in The Zeppo, but if it were a game he'd expect to be on par with Buffy on a nearly continous basis.

But, even in a game session, focus will shift from PC to PC. Either in a story sense, or the basic initiative procedure.

 

[Doug McCrae]

But I'd certainly raise an eyebrow if the Mouser unexpectedly died in the middle of the adventure and was suddenly replaced with Conan, who fell in seamlessly with Fafhrd, and then in the next chapter Fafhrd died, to be inexplicably replaced with Gimli, and then Conan and Gimli went on to finish the adventure and faced down Death in the Shadowlands.

If it was truly inexplicable I don't think it would be acceptable in most rpg sessions. Players usually want some sort of justification, even if it's feeble.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Pointless deaths, when a PC dies in some really meaningless fight like a random encounter are a lot more common in gaming than in fiction. But it should be noted that a lot of games use methods to prevent (or recover from) this such as GM fudging or resurrection magic. A lot of gamers seem to prefer the more 'storified' approach.

Not me, I love random deaths, in both fiction and gaming, makes it feel more real.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I'm simply suggesting that the yardstick by which most of humanity defines a "good story" makes "a good D&D game story" less likely

We don't know what the rules of good story are. If we did, every Hollywood movie would be brilliant.

 

[buzz]

The reason it sucks is because classical narrative structure is what we are pre-configured to appreciate.

I guess I was absent that day while getting my B.A. in English.

But I'd certainly raise an eyebrow if the Mouser unexpectedly died in the middle of the adventure and was suddenly replaced with Conan, who fell in seamlessly with Fafhrd, and then in the next chapter Fafhrd died, to be inexplicably replaced with Gimli, and then Conan and Gimli went on to finish the adventure and faced down Death in the Shadowlands.

This is a wholly separate issue from the ensemble cast thing, though. I won't argue that random removal and addition of main characters isn't a winning formula.

That said, there are also plenty of examples of people who've played the same PC through multi-year campaigns. My Monday game is on it's fourth year, and our core group of my barbarian, our wizard, and our paladin has been alive and together since level 1. There have been other PCs (players) who have come and gone, but not in a way much different from many long-running fictional series.

I'm not seeing much relevance to continued argument about Classical Narrative structure. My only point is that, while much game fiction (D&D and other) is not work I'd consider good, I don't think that it's a foregone conclusion that it must suck.

Honestly, I think it often has more to do with the people writing the stuff than the source material. No offense to Salvatore et al intended. Game fiction, as I understand it, generally has the primary purpose of pushing the overall product line. Good writing and, more importantly, editing seems to be a secondary concern. Given the rate that most game fiction gets churned out (by necessity), it doesn't surprise me at all that the quality is going to suffer.

Again, this is my impression. I honestly have not read enough of it to claim I haven't totally missed some quality books.

 

[BryonD]

Han isn't a hero because Luke is present in a scene?

Not in the classical definition.

Media will shift focus on different characters because it's not possible, as far as I know, for human beings to focus on two things at once. I don't think that stops us, over the course of a story, from following more than a single character with a significant arc.

Not seeing how that changes the point that fiction handles this in a completely different manner.

The former is definitely problematic for fiction.

Right, one clear difference.

The latter is done in some RPGs, though not many mainstream ones.

I'm not aware of any that handle it well. And certainly not on the scale that fiction routinely handles.

But, even in a game session, focus will shift from PC to PC. Either in a story sense, or the basic initiative procedure.

No one is disputing that. Not even slightly. If you think they are then you are not catching the point.

In games the focus shifts from PC to PC vastly more than in fiction.
But focus isn't really the point. In non-Zeppo episodes Zander gets the focus frequently, but he is far far from being on par with Buffy. You might easily get a huge Buffy fan to say they would love to RP Zander. But in a D&D game you'll have a very hard time getting someone to play the role that Zander plays in the Buffy show.

 

[buzz]

We don't know what the rules of good story are.

To Wulf's credit, we do. At least, there a lot of basics to good writing, and enough investigation has been done that we can say we have some rules. I mean, part of an editor's job is applying these rules.

Not that authors don't come along and kick our rules in the pants every once in a while.

 

[BryonD]

Superhero team comics and soap opera. The latter is the most popular narrative form in the world today.

I'll agree with you that Superhero comics actually are a good analog to RPGs.

However, I wouldn't say that superhero comics are the same genre as popular fantasy fiction, so that really doesn't change the conclusion.

I assume we can agree that LotR and General Hospital are not the same genre.

 

[buzz]

I'm not aware of any that handle it well. And certainly not on the scale that fiction routinely handles.

Then you need to look at some indie stuff like Polaris and Universalis.

But in a D&D game you'll have a very hard time getting someone to play the role that Zander plays in the Buffy show.

Well, people do it in the Buffy RPG (official and otherwise) all the time.

That D&D isn't designed to mix 1st and 20th level PCs in the same party is a separate, and irrelevant, issue. That's talking about D&D emulating fiction; we're talking about fiction emulating D&D.

 

[Mark CMG]

I don't think that there's an identifiable "Fantasy Gaming" genre, unless you're simply using the term to refer to "D&D-style Fantasy." I say this because most of the FRPGs I've encountered are either trying to mimic D&D's style, or else are attempting to emulate a specific mode or modes of literary/cinematic fantasy or mythology.

Using the basic structures of an RPG such as D&D or any other that might have come in the wake of D&D is not the same as mimicking D&D. Using a codified rules set to have an RPG that emulates the style of a particular literary source, such as was done with MERP, is not the same as mimicking D&D.

You know what? I've decided, upon further reflection, that games cannot be a genre unto themselves. A "genre" is something you apply to a finished work. As with an unfinished story which might begin as a western but could turn into science fiction in pages not yet written, a game cannot truly be of a particular genre, nor be one unto itself, because it is open to change during play. One might be able to say that after a game has been completed a particular genre was emulated, but that obviously isn't the same thing.

I.e., D&D basically invented its own genre in the process of Gygax, Arneson, et al inventing it (as well as the accretion of development over its lifespan). I'm not sure I can think of another FRPG that did the same thing.

Gygax and Arneson, along with others, codified the rules of RPGing from a number of implicit games of "Pretend" along with rules from miniatures games and wargames. One sometimes wonders if, Gary being from Chicago, Second City improv (which was founded in 1959) had any influence on the process, as well. I wonder if Gary was aware of Second City when he lived in Chicago and what it is that they do. (I have no doubt he is now.) D&D is a fantasy RPG that allows for a great many styles to be used or emulated, and which has also been influenced by many styles of fiction, including Swords & Sorcery, Science Fiction, High Fantasy, other types of Heroic Fiction, etc. However, being able to emulate a collection of styles does not make it a genre.

Styles of play seems to be a separate issue from the whole question of genre. E.g., "hack n' slash" set in an SF genre might better be called "shoot n' loot," but the fundamental play experience is the same.

Styles of play seem to be at the heart of the issue for some, since a genre is made up of a number of similar styles. The fundamental play experience is due to both the rules and the players and morphs, sometimes, as play progresses and it does not indicate a specific genre.

That D&D isn't designed to mix 1st and 20th level PCs in the same party is a separate, and irrelevant, issue. That's talking about D&D emulating fiction; we're talking about fiction emulating D&D.

Not while staying on topic.