The Mundane Application Of Genre Part 2
In Part 1, I shared a simple technique for creating immersion within the specific genre of a campaign, and applied it to Fantasy campaigns. This time, Science Fiction!

Image by Alexander Roy from Pixabay
Recapping The Process
0. Make a list of possible Mundane Activities (optional, but it helps).
1. Pick A Mundane Activity.
2. If it’s not something the PCs will perform in this game session, go back to step 1 and make a different choice.
3. Imagine a more genre-appropriate method.
4. Check for game balance issues. If necessary, vary the method to something that avoids the issues, or go back to step 1.
5. Apply genre-appropriate color language. Document the language for future consistency.
6. Create the bubble of narrative and attach it to the day’s play.
Recapping the Genre Discussion Structure
The Genre discussions focus on the considerations that generally apply to the most common and instructive genres – the application of the technique, in particular those that apply to steps 3, and 4. Fantasy RPGs were covered in Part 1.
Sections are arranged in a logical structure:
The existing parts of play that connect directly to the Genre.
Discussion of the points at which the process described above connects to the simulated reality within this particular genre.
Third, any conceptual tools that can help with the transformation of a mundane activity into a genre-specific activity.
Finally, any potential Game Balance and Campaign Issues get briefly examined.
That’s enough naval-gazing – let’s get to it…
Genre Discussion 2: Sci-Fi
There are people who would argue that sci-fi GMs have it easier, because there is a collective zeitgeist that can be broadly tapped into by GMs and players. If you mention a “control panel”, everyone will immediately be able to visualize what you’re talking about, even if their individual visions diverge wildly.
This diverges from Fantasy, where worlds and perceptions vary more radically, and are often mutually incompatible, or so this argument goes.
It can even be argued, and has been on occasion, that getting more specific in your narratives can be detrimental, interfering with that collective zeitgeist.
This school of thought states, therefore, that the bare minimum of details be provided in description, and only important details should be mentioned.
The Contrary Argument
Of course, there are also those who disagree. They point out that imagination is not an all-or-nothing deal, that people can take new details and refine what they are seeing in their minds’ eyes, and that there are times when it’s important for everyone to be on the same page.
Furthermore, they point out, if only important details are specified by the GM, it naturally calls attention to those details even if that should not be the case; there are times when you need to camouflage those details in a cloak of other specifics. Nor can you only do so when that’s important, or the practice becomes self-defeating; the only solution is to make descriptive text more ubiquitous.
My take on this debate
Personally, I think both sides have a point, but they are not so far apart as it might seem; the first group argue that minimal description is better than an excessive amount of description, which is obvious by definition; the second group argue that there are purposes beyond the immediate, raising that minimum level higher, but not to the point of excess.
Restated in this way, the differences between the two lines of argument and their adherents largely vanish, and debate can turn to more productive nuance like “how much is excessive?” and “what is the minimum of description needed?”
Individuals Will Vary
I have to point out that the minimum required will vary with individuals. The concept of a shared common reference frame is all very well, but it will be granular, different for everyone, depending on their exposure to science fiction in both visual and literary form, and on the power of their imaginations.
What’s more, simply because he or she is focusing on the campaign world and relaying that vision as necessary to the players, I contend that the worst-possible judge of those limits is the GM.
I visualize the situation as 2d6 x 2d6 – the first 2d6 is the power of individual’s imagination, the second is their exposure to the genre (others might prefer 3d6 x 3d6). You would expect the GM to score highly in both departments, anything else would be unusual. If you graph such a compound die roll, it looks something like this:

The actual die rolls – scaled – are shown to the left. As you can see, it’s quite anarchic. 2d6 are in dark blue, 3d6 in striped green. But it’s the cumulative total that’s of greater interest, shown to the right, and looking a lot more orderly. The GM zone (high in both qualities) is, naturally, at the bottom; what’s of more interest is the yellow bar, showing the effect of more efficient narrative.
Lowest Common Denominator? Less? More?
Let’s pick someone who’s dead average in both criteria – 7 and 7 (2d6) which yields a score of 49, scaled down to 12. Out of what? 12 x 12 = 144, / 4 = 36. So 12 is about 1/3 of the way down the chart.
Satisfy them, and your narrative will frame the situation for half. That’s not good enough – everyone has blind spots and you don’t want your game falling into one of them.
Apply some efficiency to the narrative and you are well into the 85-90% range. Maybe more, depending on how efficient your text is. This works because those with a lack of genre reference (a lack of zeitgeist) can often supplement it with imagination, and vice-versa. Anyone truly deficient in both is probably not going to be participating in a sci-fi campaign in the first place!
So how do I make my narrative more efficient?
I regarded this as so important that I wrote an entire series about it: The Secrets Of Stylish Narrative. But you might like check out Part 6 in particular, because it offers the entire series as a downloadable PDF and a checklist.
Touching Base – what does all this mean?
What we’re trying to define here is how frequently you reference something that reminds players of the genre of the campaign. Do it too often, and you risk desensitization and hence a lack of impact; too infrequently, and players can’t fully visualize their environment and surroundings, and that risks disconnection from the genre and the campaign. Somewhere in between is the sweet spot for maximum immersion without bogging down.
The analysis says that most of the time, pitching your narrative at the average player, and applying some efficiency of narrative, will encompass that sweet spot. If you have a player who is relatively unimaginative, or who has relatively little genre zeitgeist to draw on, may require slightly more fulsome descriptions, but not as much as most people think.
With that target in mind, let’s see existing genre connections we have to draw upon.
Existing Genre Connections: Tech Challenges
Some challenges that the PCs have to overcome are directly tech-related, for example “Calculate the orbit of the planet and the navigational changes needed to take us there” – or simply, “Navigate to the planet”. Anyone with any expertise in space travel immediately knows not to aim for where the planet is now, but where it will be when you get there, which complicates the roll – but, ultimately it is still just a skill roll, made according to the appropriate game mechanics.
The character acting as Navigator makes his die roll, the GM interprets the results, and announces, “Two hours / days [or whatever” from now, the planet will loom large on the viewscreen.”
Job done.
Existing Genre Connections: Tech Dramas
Equally, there are some situations that can’t exist without tech. This is easy to lean on too heavily, something that various Star Trek franchises were often criticized for, but that doesn’t mean they should not be part of your campaign.
“We’ve blown a plasma conduit, we’re only at 1/3 power until it’s repaired.”
“Alert engineering to get on the job. Can you reroute power around the affected section?”
“I think so.”
That passage of dialogue could have come from almost any episode of Voyager, or from multiple episodes of Next Gen. Each genre has its own tech dramas.
“We’ve blown a Discriminator – R2, see what you can do to lock it down,”
is a Star Wars equivalent that most players will recognize – it seemed to happen every time Luke took his X-wing into combat. And once or twice to the Millennium Falcon, I seem to recall.
Every such situation automatically connects to the genre. Again, job done.
Existing Genre Connections: Tech Weapons
“No Blaster! No Blasters!!”
Every tech weapon is a direct reminder of the genre, if it is described as such. Blasters, Lightsabers, Proton Guns – anything like that counts. But take the word “Proton” out of that last example, and it completely loses its mojo; “Gun” alone is too generic.
Never refer to a weapon as a “weapon”. If you have to, define a class of weapons that the specific weapon belongs to, but most of the time that won’t be needed – “You draw your Blaster” works just fine. Where most game systems fall down is in providing specific model numbers – “Abrams Baster 2277 model 3”, for example. This doesn’t change any of the specifics associated with the generic term “Blaster” (unless you want it to) but it implies that it does, for immediate verisimilitude.
Existing Genre Connections: Vehicles
More than almost any genre, Sci-Fi is about going places in vehicles. The only genre that even comes close is Pirates/Swashbuckling – and maybe Spellajmmers. Pulp also often relies on characters taking transportation from one place to another, but it’s not as ubiquitous as the other examples.
Every interaction with the vessel is, or should be, a genre touchstone. Ditto every interaction with any other type of vehicle that gets encountered.
Forget the term “Car” and anything associated with it. It’s a “Hover-sled” or a “Transport” or a “Grav-wagon” or even an “E-Car”. “Car” should be reserved for internal-combustion engines, and described in sneering tones for how primitive and dirty the technology is – because that implies that the usual technology is NOT so mundane.
Again, most game systems are great at giving you generics and nowhere near as good at specifics. Quick quiz: How many models and manufacturers of Cars has planet Earth produced over the last century or so? How many can you name off the top of your head? How many more can you recall if you are given a few minutes to think about it?
In any sci-fi campaign, there should be at least as many, and they should all have their identifiable characteristics and foibles. Well, specifying the details for all of them is a lot of work, but assigning a specific name and a peculiarity or trait to each vehicle that actually shows up in play is far more doable.
Consult The Care And Feeding Of Vehicles In RPGs (Part 1 and Part 2) for more.
Existing Genre Connections: Interfaces and Tools
There is no tech that should not have a control interface. And every control interface is an opportunity to connect to the genre.
Some genre contact can be conveyed through the look-and-feel of technology, but for the real juice, think about the control interfaces and how they are used.
This is so obvious to me that I wrote an article specifically devoted to it: Studs, Buttons, and Static Cling: Creating consistent non-human tech.
The trap that many GMs fall into if they follow that advice is not documenting how the controls are manipulated in canned text, and hence being inconsistent, and that can kill the effect faster than a short-circuit.
Many GMs also don’t realize that they don’t have to explain why. Take a look at any transporter sequence from any Star Trek – the odds of anything being explained in detail are extremely low, but the sheer consistency of the way they manipulate the controls creates its own iconography that translates from one series to another, no matter hoe the tech changes.
The same is true in Stargate. The sequence – announced, sotto voice, military style, is always the same (except when it deliberately .isn’t), and the very deviation from normal is implicit in the dialogue:
“Chevron one encoded – Chevron two – Chevron three – chevron four – chevron five – chevron six – chevron seven will not lock!”
Babylon-5 is normally a standard-setter, but – while they did show some non-human control panels from time to time – not a lot of thought seemed to go into them. Admittedly, they usually had other fish to fry, but this is one case where it’s “do as I say, not as I do” much of the time (there are exceptions).
Existing Genre Connections: Automation & Power
Even the most mundane tool can be ‘sci-fi’d up” with automation and power. A screwdriver is a simple tool. An electric screwdriver applies power. An electric screwdriver that automatically adjusts the torque to the situation and self-rights – sweet! A sonic screwdriver – well, that’s next level, or just showing off.
If you have a spare five minutes sometime, do a little research into the differences in electric plug design from one country to another. Start with UK vs America vs Australia and go on from there.
Then throw in the differences in control interfaces. Australia has a switch for every electric socket, without activating it, no power flows. That means that you can leave things plugged in bit turned off and they won’t run up the electric bill. It means that if you’ve left the device switched on accidentally, it won’t start up as soon as you plug it in. It means that if there’s a wiring fault, you have a chance to notice when you turn the power on but before it zaps you!
Most places in the world don’t have this. The UK requires each plug to be separately fused, or used to, so that there is at least some safeguard against faulty wiring. The US generally (as I understand it) makes no attempt to incorporate such protections except at the whole-of-supply switchboard level, which Australia also does – but I’m not so sure about the UK.
It can be extremely eye-opening!
Point Of Contact: Expertise – Task meets Genre
So much for the easy pickings. Now it gets a little more difficult, but far more important.
The points of contact previously listed make it fairly clear that any GM who makes the effort can translate any contact with game mechanics, and a few more things besides, into a connection to the genre. But, as I assess the collective results, two great gaps appear.
The first are those long stretches of play when there are no game mechanics involved, just one character interacting with another, or simply looking around. And the second is that all of these existing genre references fall a little flat – where’s the sense of wonder, the sense that (from an early 21st century point of view) these people can do Amazing things?
Part of this can be addressed through this point of contact. Many things that are hard for us, or hard work at least, should come easily to PCs and NPCs in a sci-fi campaign. They should have tools that we have barely thought of – though that’s quite hard to do, because we (specifically, the GM) has to imagine them.
The more mundane the task, the less impact there will be on game balance.
Does anyone remember what it was like when the programmable vacuum cleaners first came onto the market? Before too long it was “Show them the terrain to be cleaned and sit back and let them do the rest”. They could be set to clean according to a fixed schedule, or sent into action at the push of a button.
In fact, there have been innovations in just about every field you can think of over the last 30-odd years. Everything from Bread-makers to air-fryers to better non-stick pans to more effective water filtration to home solar panels to dash-cams and google maps.
Back in the 1990s, I spent a period of time writing sci-fi – a short story every day – just to dip my toe in the waters. I would write a new story in the morning, and edit a story written previously in the afternoon. By the time I finished (because I had found full-time work elsewhere – this was a plan “B”) I had written 20-odd stories in 23 days. At the heart of each of these stories was a ubiquitously-common piece of household, commercial, or industrial equipment that I tried to “futurise” – what would it be like in 50, 100, 500 years? What would we use instead? What else could it do? What was the developmental path that led to the improvement, and what else could / would be done with that technology?
Every time a character performs a mundane task, the GM should pull out a piece of advanced tech to do it better, or smarter, or easier, or safer, or some combination of these four. Every time a character attempts a more difficult or technical task, the GM should ask themselves what tech could do to make it more of a mundane task – and how far toward that goal technology had advanced?
Point Of Contact: Customization & Personal Preferences
Such things don’t stop there. The other area that should advance is the ability to customize or personalize tools and technology.
At least, that was my thinking up until Windows 7 was released, back in – what, 2010? No, 2009.
You see, I was a big fan of Windows 98, and its XP successor. It could run any Windows software, and for every function, if I didn’t like the way Windows did something, I could download something that would perform that function exactly the way I wanted. Everything was customizable, and every installation was a fingerprint of the user.
Windows 7 began to erode that, with Windows 10 completing the migration. Beyond the areas that Microsoft let you customize, its mostly one-size-fits-all, these days. And people have grown used to it being that way. Sure, other operating systems still permit customization – but most of them are fiddly and complicated. Some of them will even run Windows software – but not necessarily the software that I want them to run. Drivers and hardware compatibility remained a perpetual concern when I was running Ubuntu on the laptop I was using at the time; I was never confident enough to go-Ubuntu for my desktop computer.
It’s my overall impression that modern PCs have enough processing power under the hood that even an inefficient generic process is good enough – in the minds of the powers-that-be, at least.
Maybe there will come a time when it’s not enough for people, and task-specific apps begin to proliferate again, each offering something that they do better, faster, cleaner, smarter than the app next door – which will have its own strengths and weaknesses. The optimum approach will be to select and employ the most effective tool for each stage of a complex process. Or maybe not. (In fact, we are starting to reach the limits of how far we can push the existing technology to make it more processor-powerful, so any limits in the current paradigm should start showing up in the next decade or so).
But people are NOT cookie-cutter clones. And the ability to customize tools will always be an improvement if key functionality is preserved.
A hammer that extends to the perfect length? With adjustable weights and grips so that its always perfectly- balanced – for you? I’d buy that, assuming that it still worked as a hammer and didn’t cost more than having such a tool was worth to me. And I don’t think that will change all that much into the future.
So customization and personalization will definitely have some sort of role in future tech; what that role will be is up to the GM. But once they have done so, each tool becomes a reference point for the genre, and for the campaign.
Self-sealing Stem Bolts, anyone? (Okay, some readers might not ‘get’ that reference – look it up!)
Point Of Contact: Scale
Another point is that it should be much easier to do things at scale that we would normally consider isolated tasks. The combination of communications and automation should enable a single individual to do the work of dozens.
Exactly how this is achieved is the sci-fi connection. Something will inevitably make this possible in at least some cases, and that something is up to the GM.
This is a decision with big implications, all contained under the sub-heading, “what else can this technology do?” so the GM should think about this very carefully.
A couple of examples:
1. Linked ships so that the best navigator can set a course for multiple vessels at the same time, while less-skilled navigators check his work and function as back-ups.
2. Digging a hole while wearing a telepresence suit that causes a dozen robots, carefully spaced, to mimic every movement.
You can combat some of the resulting problems with an increased emphasis on artisanship. Assuming that core functionality is assured by industrialized processes, this leads to the customization and individualism that I discussed earlier.
The alternative is to stay with very industrialized cookie0-cutter products and accept whatever the consequences are. The choices do result in a very different look-and-feel to a campaign, though, as one would expect the same ethos to extend into ship design and architecture and social processes and even the application of law and custom.
Make the choice that best fits your campaign setting and make sure that the ramifications and style spread throughout the campaign universe.
Point Of Contact: Efficiency & The Lack Thereof
Another area to consider carefully are the effects of future tech on personal efficiency. What can and will be improved? How will that manifest when the PCs attempt to do things?
The decision made in the previous section is obviously also highly relevant. The artisan approach is inherently less efficient than the industrial one; either that is considered an acceptable trade-off, or – more likely – tool efficiency makes up enough of the difference that the manufacture of goods and performance of services is left at whatever standard the GM wants to be extant.
The combination, in other words, lets the GM create and justify an environment and social setting that is whatever he wants it to be – but that mandates the GM making such a choice, and preferably not doing so blindly.
The sheer act of defining and implementing such standards makes virtually every task, every application of skill, another point of contact between genre and game-play.
Point Of Contact: Malfunctions
This is the last point of contact that is inherent within basic gameplay, and it’s probably the most obvious. In fact, little more needs be said about it – when something goes wrong in a high-tech (or low-tech!) environment, there is an obvious and direct point of contact with the genre and sub-genre.
Potential Game Balance Issues
These have been touched on along the way but it should be obvious – making characters more efficient, more effective, and/or more capable, obviously holds potential game balance issues that need to be carefully considered.
These are mitigated to some extent by the fat that whatever a PC can do, an NPC can also do. Sauce for the goose, in other words.
It’s where the PCs can do things that an NPC can’t that trouble lurks, because any such capacity is amplified by the technology, perhaps beyond the point of control – and the same is true in the other direction, as well.
Some differences should be obvious, and celebrated; it’s part of the magic of sci-fi. But always in a controlled manner; sooner or later, if you don’t control the limits of technology, they will control you.
And that’s where I have to leave this article for this week, not for lack of time (as might more usually be the case) but because my eyesight has suddenly gone bad on me.
Scaling the text to 250% makes it legible but blurred, but it still demands intense concentration or a magnifying glass to read or write, and perching my reading glasses right at the end of my nose (most uncomfortably)! At first I thought it was tiredness, but I got plenty of sleep over the weekend and it’s still an issue, so that’s, at best, only part of the problem.
I’m going to have to get this checked out over the next couple of days, not that there’s any room in my budget for new eye-wear in the near future.
In the meantime, I’m going to have to work in shorter stints for a while. So I’ll pick this up with superheros and the Wild West next time around!
UPDATE:
I rested a while, and my vision improved a bit.
It’s starting to get more problematic again at the moment, just as I need to do final editing and formatting of the post… fortunately, in those terms, it’s a simple one. It still took three times as long as it would normally have done!
But tiredness and eyestrain are definitely part of the story, and I’ll just have to accommodate them, at least for now.
Discover more from Campaign Mastery
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
October 14th, 2024 at 5:33 am
The Mundane Application of Genre Part 2″ explores how everyday life intertwines with various genres, revealing the often-overlooked significance of storytelling frameworks in shaping our perceptions and experiences
Adam Josh recently posted..Comparison between Remini AI Apk and Fotor Photo Editor
October 14th, 2024 at 6:46 am
That was the goal, Adam. Hopefully, the article hits that nail on the head!
November 26th, 2024 at 2:59 pm
Fantastic insights, Mike! I really enjoyed how you broke down the concept of genre and applied it to everyday scenarios—it’s such a fresh perspective that makes the topic feel so approachable. Your examples in Part 2 added even more depth to the discussion. Which genre do you find the most surprising or challenging to apply in a mundane context?
Dorothy E. Chung recently posted..Download Lightroom Pro Mod APK [Unlock Premium Features]
November 28th, 2024 at 5:54 am
Incongruity can always cause problems, Dorothy. For example, I might be thinking about how the characters in a Sci-Fi campaign prepare toast and find that the process I come up with doesn’t match the available level of technology – it’s either too primitive or too advanced (or sometimes both!) – which means that all the development work has to be set aside (but not thrown out, because you never know when it will be useful for something else). A real example that comes to mind was thinking about galaxy-wide navigation – which turned out not to be useful at all (too primitive) for the intended purpose, but which enabled me to develop a 3D “Map” of the galaxy showing how Green Lanterns could have a more equitable distribution of responsibility by using “Sector” as something more abstract and less geometric in its definition (defined as a certain number of stars, which presumably meant a roughly equal share of inhabited systems to be protected).
December 27th, 2024 at 6:29 pm
The exploration of genre in everyday contexts is truly fascinating! Just as the Cyberpunk Jacket embodies the fusion of style and narrative, this discussion highlights how genres shape even the most mundane aspects of our lives. A thought-provoking read!
Cyberpunk Jacket recently posted..Top Christmas Gifts for Gamers
December 28th, 2024 at 4:49 am
Thank you, glad you enjoyed it :)