Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1054119What is your preferred approach to genre emulation?

For me, I like to take the hard work out of it. I mean, I'll let the game handle it itself. So if you want a Lovecraft themed, then CoC is an obvious choice and the mechanics are already set up for you. The players are already 'primed' as they know what to expect. Jobs a good 'un...

My own approach is pretty simple.

I was recently GMing Whitebox (with the WB add on for Gothic stuff). I told the players, that it was going to be a gothic horror scenario. I made sure the adventure, that I wrote and emulated the horror and feel of the genre that I wanted. They all played appropriate characters like, Monster Hunter, Wanderer and Spiritualist, etc. So that was appropriate as well.

So we all made it work together in the end.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1054306To me the sounds like genre physics; where the world tends to emulate the laws of a genre but in a consistent way that isn't necessarily trying to emulate the stories of the genre.

This is basically all the genre emulation I need in a game. I wouldn't want Call of Cthulhu to shove a way of playing down my throat that only recreates Lovecraft's writing, I want horror roleplaying in the worlds of HP Lovecraft, as it states on the cover (at least up until 6th edition).

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1054119What is your preferred approach to genre emulation?

I think the question is too broad; I'm not sure what the meaning of "approach" is here.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1054783I think the question is too broad; I'm not sure what the meaning of "approach" is here.

I was looking for a broad range of answers that cover all kinds of things. So by approach I meant both what kinds of systems and tools do you like, or dislike, for genre emulation, and what kind of things do you like, or not like, GMs to do when they emulate genres.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1054166I discuss genre expectations as it relates to the campaign to make sure we're all on the same page.
Websites like TVtropes are very helpful too.

System rules are useful, but nothing is more important than the conversations with players who may not all be equally familiar with the genre.

I prefer that the rules reflect the genre assumptions, and that the players discover the genre as a result of exploring the world, not by understanding the genre conventions and roleplaying them just to be in that genre. The result is often only peripherally in the intended genre but is more interesting than players making choices to be in the genre.

Consider discussing genre expectations but then using a rule system that works against it: how long will it take the players who expect to be paladinly knights of the Round Table to turn into looting murderhobos who kill their king, because the rules don't reward anything else? If you have players you don't want, this might be an amusing way of driving them off.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1054188I think it's extremely important to delve in with the players so they understand that for my campaigns, "genre" does not mean "roleplaying within some form of media construct" but "roleplaying in a world and setting of a certain media construct".  In other words, whether we are in Middle Earth, Hyboria, Westeros, Star Wars, Star Trek, or the Expanse, we are not roleplaying within a story and your PCs are not protagonists.  They have no script immunity.  We won't be both roleplaying them and talking about them from the 3rd person using OOC mechanics to reinforce genre or other narrative elements.  We're going to be roleplaying, not roleplaying plus storytelling.

As a roleplayer, I prefer to roleplay.  I like my genre-reinforcing mechanics to be as subtle as possible.  An example that to me is acceptable is personality mechanics.  For example, Call of Cthulhu Sanity, Warhammer Hatred, and Pendragon Virtues.  They are basically stats that chart the mental definition of your character within the setting and rolling against them, if presented properly, are no different than making a Strength check.  

When they have a broader impact, like possibly being modifiers to other actions, like Mythas Passions, they become a little annoying as now we step outside the character a bit to discuss whether 77% Love of Queen and Country is going to affect this situation.

More annoying is stuff like "Ales and Whores" rules, that govern automatically how characters make use of resources.  Not a big fan of structured and mechanically enforced Downtime minigames as they tend to be bland or just storytelling exercises.  Downtime rules with robust random events can be pretty entertaining.

Stuff like "Naked Barbarian/Chainmail Bikini Armor" and "Stormtrooper Marksmanship Academy", or dividing NPCs into Minion/Toughened/Nemesis each having different rules, I absolutely despise.

I agree on disliking rules that force characters into certain actions (what does the player do, if the character's actions are determined by the rules?) but I am OK with rules that forbid some actions (e.g., that the player characters have to be of certain alignments and act accordingly). I am also not unhappy with things like minions that establish different rules for certain kinds of NPCs.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1054797I was looking for a broad range of answers that cover all kinds of things. So by approach I meant both what kinds of systems and tools do you like, or dislike, for genre emulation, and what kind of things do you like, or not like, GMs to do when they emulate genres.

1. Give details and commentary that promotes a genre feeling without otherwise affecting the game: Barovia in Curse of Strahd felt very different from the usual Forgotten Realms setting for D&D 5e, even if the challenges could be the same.
2. Have players agree to act in ways consistent with the genre that is being emulated
3. Have NPCs act in genre-consistent ways, and react to genre-inconstent PCs as if they are insane, but have non-hostile NPCs help genre-consistent PCs.
4. Have rules that reward genre-consistent play and penalize genre-consistent play, but allow players to go against the genre when they choose (accepting the penalties).
5. Have rules that forbid genre-inconsistent play of at least some kinds.
6. Have rules that force specific genre-consistent actions.

I like 4 best; I like 5 if not too broad (i.e., where it might as well be 6). I hate 6. 1 to 3 are generally appropriate but probably not sufficient.

Quote from: rawma;1054820Consider discussing genre expectations but then using a rule system that works against it: how long will it take the players who expect to be paladinly knights of the Round Table to turn into looting murderhobos who kill their king, because the rules don't reward anything else?

Are you familiar with 2e AD&D? It always felt like that to me.

Quote from: S'mon;1054821Are you familiar with 2e AD&D? It always felt like that to me.

As it happens, that's the one edition of D&D I don't own any rule books from. I bought 3e rule books to see whether it was substantially different but continued to play 1e (or an OD&D/1e hybrid); I played some in 4e but finally embraced 5e. I don't think I would play any of the earlier editions again.

I wonder if this impression of 2e AD&D followed just from changing trends in fantasy RPGs - dungeons seemed out of favor, so it promised other genres but still inherited enough rules from earlier editions that were inconsistent with those genres.

Quote from: rawma;1054820I prefer that the rules reflect the genre assumptions, and that the players discover the genre as a result of exploring the world, not by understanding the genre conventions and roleplaying them just to be in that genre. The result is often only peripherally in the intended genre but is more interesting than players making choices to be in the genre.

That's my preference too.

Quote3. Have NPCs act in genre-consistent ways, and react to genre-inconstent PCs as if they are insane, but have non-hostile NPCs help genre-consistent PCs.
4. Have rules that reward genre-consistent play and penalize genre-consistent play, but allow players to go against the genre when they choose (accepting the penalties).
5. Have rules that forbid genre-inconsistent play of at least some kinds.
6. Have rules that force specific genre-consistent actions.

Is 5. really a thing? I don't remember a game where this happens.

2nd edition did get away from murderhobo by including rules for awarding XP for class specific activities, and "story rewards" for completeing short and long term quests. They still gave xp for monsters and loot, but IIRC awarded xp for "defeating" monsters, not just killing them.
And the proficiencies section was a much more robust non-combat skill system for D&D after 1st edition. (Maybe not Basic, I don't remember)
But it could be run murderhobo, and I think running it that way was (and really, I'd say even "is" with subsequent editions) easier than coming up with more involved adventures.

Quote from: rawma;10548205. Have rules that forbid genre-inconsistent play of at least some kinds.

Quote from: Itachi;1054831Is 5. really a thing? I don't remember a game where this happens.

I was thinking things like forbidding certain alignments and PvP - Adventurers League does both of those.

It's probably more a group contract than something that appears in game rules.

Quote from: rawma;10548202. Have players agree to act in ways consistent with the genre that is being emulated
3. Have NPCs act in genre-consistent ways, and react to genre-inconstent PCs as if they are insane, but have non-hostile NPCs help genre-consistent PCs.

I don't know - 2 and 3 seem problematic to me.  How do we really agree on what is genre consistent?  Especially now that a lot of media contain characters who are themselves genre savvy.  What's the difference between genre consistency and clever subversion?

Or wouldn't games be poorer if they couldn't include moments like this?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]2857[/ATTACH]

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1054119What is your preferred approach to genre emulation?

I think The One Ring does a pretty good job of it. Many of the rules are directly inspired by Tolkien quotes found in the books. It's a bit fiddly, but good at the same time. Pendragon also looks very good, but I have never actually played it.

Quote from: TJS;1054861I don't know - 2 and 3 seem problematic to me.  How do we really agree on what is genre consistent?  Especially now that a lot of media contain characters who are themselves genre savvy.  What's the difference between genre consistency and clever subversion?

How do you define the genre you're emulating? I would probably point to certain exemplars: Edgar Rice Burroughs' Barsoom for Sword and Planet, for instance. A character would act in a genre consistent way for a game if it wouldn't be jarring for a Burroughs character on Barsoom to act that way; it shouldn't be a straitjacket that only allows the exact known stories to occur. Certainly there is potential for disagreement about what would be jarring, but not over extreme examples.

Genre subversion isn't that big an issue; you just need to decide whether you're emulating the subverted or unsubverted genre, and avoid subversions that don't follow from character knowledge. Characters should not reason from the players' knowledge of the genre, but your attachment seemed potentially out of genre to me only because the character references Republic serials (but I'm not sure what the genre actually is), not because he is aware that premature gloating by villains is a bad move. I offer you true genre savviness that would be antithetical to genre emulation:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]2858[/ATTACH]

Edit: Link added for Tom the Dancing Bug, so you can actually read it if you're inclined.

Quote from: S'mon;1054821Are you familiar with 2e AD&D? It always felt like that to me.

Except in especially 2e you get ZERO exp for just killing civilians merchants and cows. And little to no EXP for killing things helpless or way beneath your league.

Quote from: TJS;1054861I don't know - 2 and 3 seem problematic to me.  How do we really agree on what is genre consistent?  Especially now that a lot of media contain characters who are themselves genre savvy.  What's the difference between genre consistency and clever subversion?

Or wouldn't games be poorer if they couldn't include moments like this?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]2857[/ATTACH]

Watchmen was an intentional Inversion-of-Genre, which ironically became a genre itself as other comics tried desperately to copy it.