thread: 2008-04-14 : Interchangeable?
On 2008-04-15, Piers wrote:
I've been thinking about this for a while in terms of literary terminology, and particularly the difference between "genre" and "form." This may not be particularly helpful to you if you aren't familiar with literary theory, but if you are, I think it is useful. (
Crudely, think, genre: mystery, science fiction, romance; form: novel, poem, newspaper article. In theory, you can write any genre in any form. For Vincent's argument, read: formal for functional, generic for aesthetic.
The point being: for a long time roleplayers have been accustomed to changing rules systems in order to switch genre: are we playing fantasy, SF; horror, vampires; chivalry, sorcery. That seems normal and natural.
By contrast, roleplaying has been seen as a single form, like the novel. Roleplaying is only roleplaying—no matter which genre your game is set in, no matter what rules, you are still "roleplaying."
Indie games, however, propose different formal or structural arrangements: different distributions of authority; different forms for story; different sorts of narration. Now, whether they are a new form, per se, or only radically different versions of a current form (say, the difference between a realist and a modernist novel), can be argued. But they threaten to overset the apple-cart.
Moreover, the line between "genre" and "form" is not as clear as I have been making it out to be: genres possess formal elements—conventional structures which are not easily separable from the genre (think, the plot arc of the romance).
Which leaves us in a bind: either the differences between some systems are unimportant, are essentially interchangeable, or, as Vincent suggests, this functional / aesthetic divide is part of a longer continuum. (I lean towards the later end of the spectrum.)
