Keeping to the Theme

I’ve written about the importance of how you describe the rules being as important as the rules themselves before, but it’s worth revisiting. As I finish up The Magnus Archives RPG, I am constantly thinking about this. Sometimes things that are presented in one way in one sort of game need to be presented in a different way in a different game. Here are two broad examples to give you an idea of what I'm talking about.

Creatures 

A horror monster should not be written up like a fantasy monster. Think about the different purposes “monsters” present in these two genres. In most fantasy games, monsters are everywhere. They’re a natural part of the world. And perhaps most importantly, they’re an expected aspect of the game. You go into a dark wood or a ruined castle and you expect monsters. And probably in decent numbers and a wide variety. Fighting monsters is probably the primary PC activity, and the game likely bases some mechanical currency (like experience points) on doing just that.

But now think about a horror game. In most, monsters are decidedly not everywhere.They’re not a natural part of the world—that is, in fact, the point. They’re unnatural, and unexpected. The PCs might not even believe in them, at least at first. Moreover, when they make an appearance in the game, it’s very likely just one monster (or if not, a small number), and that one encounter is the central hub upon which the entire adventure turns. Fighting monsters isn’t the primary activity of the PCs, but investigating them (and surviving) is.

In other words, even though both genres include monsters, their role is almost the exact opposite. In fantasy, they are the obstacle keeping the PCs from the goal, and in a horror game, they are the goal. 

So a designer shouldn’t present monsters in these two games in the same way at all. A fantasy monster likely needs details about its place in the world and the treasure it might have. A horror monster has no place in the world, so its presentation should be about that—what does it do when it interacts with the mundane and vice versa.

Even the mechanics involved are different. A fantasy monster needs clear definition and—at least to some extent—balance. If it fits into the world, then its stats have to as well. In D&D, a terrasque is super tough, but it fits into the world because it rarely makes an appearance (otherwise, it would dominate whole regions). Horror offers no such restrictions. Rather, a horror monster should be shrouded in mystery, and it should be so terrible in the threat it presents that the PCs (and everyone else) are terrified of them. Because running away and being scared is the point of the genre. 

Gameplay

Beyond monsters, think about what the rules say about the game and expected gameplay. If weapons dominate the equipment list and most of the character abilities are about inflicting or avoiding damage, that’s great, but you’re telling the players that it’s a game about combat. Likewise if the rules themselves offer few rules involving position and tactics, and things like attacks are resolved with a single roll with only a few (or no) options for modifiers, that’s stating that it’s not a game about combat. Again, comparing fantasy and horror, a fantasy game likely has different kinds of damage (fire, slashing, or the touch of a spectre all have different effects) so that different spells or effects can inflict or counter such things in an interesting way. But a horror game might not go into such detail because characters are probably so fragile that such distinctions don’t really matter. Because, again, the game wants things to be terrifying.

And it’s not just genre that determines different approaches. Two high-combat fantasy games can still differentiate how tactical the gameplay is. A tactical game elaborates on position, character action interactions, and likely has a robust action economy (how many things you can do on your turn, and how often you can do them). A more narrative game likely has more sweeping generalizations of actions, theater of the mind, and concessions that stress story over mechanics.

Consider these three limited use, magical abilities in a fantasy game:

Fleet of Foot

Effect: The character can move 10 feet farther than normal when they use a move action, and 15 feet farther when they use a double move action. The character gains +1 to their defenses on any turn they use a move or double move action, and adds +1 to damage to any attacks made on a turn they move as well.

Burst of Speed

Effect: For one minute, the character (who normally can move a short distance as an action) can move a long distance instead.

Run!

Effect: If the character is being chased, they get away. The pursuer eventually gives up (based on the circumstances). However, if they are given the opportunity—such as the character coming back—the original pursuer may give chase again, and this time it is resolved normally.

Fleet of Foot has some fairly precise movement rules (utilizing 5-foot increments), is based on a detailed action economy, and works in some combat modifiers. It presumes that you’ll be using this in combat, but it covers its use in non-combat situations. This is a mechanic for a tactical, combat-heavy game.

Burst of Speed is far less exacting, referencing mechanics that utilize general distance categories and fairly relaxed action economy. It offers no modifiers for combat, perhaps assuming the GM will take such things into account should they come up (or not). This mechanic is appropriate to a game that emphasizes action and doesn’t ignore mechanics, but is far more open to generalizations for the sake of gameplay.

Run! is both more absolute and yet more limited than either of the other two. You just get away if chased—no roll—but it only works if you’re chased, and doesn’t make you faster in other respects. It doesn’t mention distance or an action economy at all, and assumes the GM and player will be making frequent alterations based on circumstance. This ability is for a very narrative-focused, non-tactical game without a lot of granularity.

Of course, the three approaches are not mutually exclusive. I could see Run! and Burst of Speed in the same game if that game straddled the boundary between mechanical and narrative-focused games. I could maybe even see Run! and Fleet of Foot in the same game, but Run! would have to be a powerful, rare, or difficult to obtain capability since its effect is so unconditional. I don’t think Fleet of Foot and Burst of Speed would ever be in the same game as they’re just different approaches to the same thing.

This is a big topic, but it’s probably one of the main things I think about when switching from one game to another, as I frequently do, managing a creative team working on a variety of products within the bounds of a variety of systems or genres (or both) every day.