Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watmath.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!jagardner
From: jagardner@watmath.UUCP (Jim Gardner)
Newsgroups: net.games.frp
Subject: Re: Generic vs. Personal Scenarios
Message-ID: <920@watmath.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 23-Jan-86 12:24:45 EST
Article-I.D.: watmath.920
Posted: Thu Jan 23 12:24:45 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 24-Jan-86 08:39:15 EST
References: <688@ihlts.UUCP> <369@mcc-db2.UUCP> <741@watmath.UUCP> <168@ulowell.UUCP>
Reply-To: jagardner@watmath.UUCP (Jim Gardner)
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 100

[...]

A while ago I brought up the question of generic vs. personal
scenarios.  It doesn't surprise me that some people prefer one
style to another, and far be it from me to start a feud out of
something that started just out of curiosity.  Nevertheless, I
want to reply to some of the things that Chet Dobro says below,
because I think he misunderstood some of the things I said.

In article <168@ulowell.UUCP> dobro@ulowell.UUCP (Chet Dobro) writes:
>The world should not be taylored (by the GM) to fit the player(s).
>The players should take the world and make their mark in it.
>Give them (the players) something to weork with, but [except in specail
>cases] don't create a world to fit the players. That takes the fun away from
>them if they don't have to fight (figurativly speaking) to fit in.

No one says the characters get the world on a platter.  As a matter
of fact, they get the reverse.  They begin their adventures in a
world that is indifferent to them, but everything they do has
repercussions.  Mistakes come back to haunt them, not just in terms
of injuries or what not, but vendettas, broken friendships, lost
opportunities, and so on.  The GM keeps introducing new material,
of course, but never loses sight of the old.
 
>To cross genres "How we deal with death is at least as important as how we
>deal with life, wouldn't you say?"
>The point is, characters are  going to die. That is part of the fun of frp.
>The gods can't always intervene (and *shouldn't*). You must cherish you
>character(s), tyring to preserve their life. It is not up to the GM to keep
>your character alive [the singular will be used for convience only],
>it is up to you. That is the challenge.
  
Characters can still die in a personal campaign.  In particular,
NPC's can prove very fragile.  Recently, we had a superhero lose
his wife, after a year and a half playing time and a great deal
of personal interaction.  I think the experience was more traumatic
for the group than losing a player character would have been.  We've
lost player characters before, and the next week the same player is
back with someone new.  When a long-time NPC dies, she is gone.  She
will never return and there will never be anyone like her again.

And of course, if the players reach the point where they are depending
on the GM to save their lives, something has gone seriously wrong with
the game.  The GM should take corrective action somehow (a warning shot
at an NPC or serious injury).  But as a GM, I have far worse fates in
store for my characters than mere death.  When a player character dies,
the player gets someone new to play.  When a player character gets into
trouble, or is seriously injured, or suffers some other change in his/her
status, the player must struggle against greater odds to win.  THAT'S
more interesting and more satisfying.

Example: in a superhero campaign, the players screwed up and were
beaten by the bad guys.  The GM could have killed us all, but he
didn't -- he just took away our powers, then advertised that we
weren't super any more.  Without any powers, we had to take on old
foes who took advantage of the situation, we had to go into hiding,
and eventually had to take on the bad guys to get our powers back.
That gave us three months of great gaming, and it felt tremendous
when we finally squeaked through.  If we had just died, we'd be a
bunch of new superheroes the next week and again able to leap tall
buildings in a single bound.
 
I asked the question:
>> Which RPG systems tend towards Generic campaigns, and which encourage
>> Personal ones?
Chet replied:
>Any system has the potential to  go into detail...
>Insert here general muck-raking about how bad points of AD&D...
>The choice (Personal/Generic) is not dependant upon the game system,
>*NOR* upon the DM, it is strictly the right/priviledge/obligation of the PC.

Yes, any system has the ability to do most things, but some
encourage one style of play and some encourage the other.  For
example, in the Hero Game System, players create their characters
with Disadvantages, personal or external influences that make life
harder.  One of the most important disadvantages for this discussion
is being Hunted.  A character is Hunted by a person or group of people,
usually because of something that happened before the game started.
In theory, the GM rolls dice before each gaming session and if the
roll is below a certain number, the session should include an
appearance of the Hunting Party.  (This does not necessarily mean
a full assault, but it does mean that the Hunters show up and get
in the way, or do something nasty behind the scenes.)

Clearly, this sets the game on a fairly personal basis.  The system
requires the GM to build in factors specific to a character.  The GM
is free to ignore this if (s)he wants, but game balance is destroyed
is character disadvantages are not true disadvantages.  Therefore, I
would say that the Hero System leans towards the Personal style of
campaigning.  Because AD&D has such a wealth of Generic modules, I
would suggest that most D&D campaigns lean towards the Generic,
although this may not be true of many groups.

And that's really what started the question when I asked it in the
first place.  How many GMs run Personal campaigns?  How many GMs
run Generic ones?  How many GMs work at taking a middle road?
What do people prefer?

			Jim Gardner, University of Waterloo