Your thoughts on Generic versus Bespoke systems.

[Reynard]

When it comes to RPGs, how do you feel about "generic" rulesets that intend to allow for broad application, versus bespoke systems that focus on narrow ranges of themes, style and/or genre?
Note that by "generic" here I don't necessarily mean "universal." In this context, D&D is "generic" because it (ostensibly) allows for a broad range of high fantasy games. Blades in the Dark, on the other hand, falls into the category I am referring to as "bespoke" because it focuses on a very specific style of play with setting assumptions built into the game mechanics. Of course, it is a continuum as well. Is Mutants and Masterminds generic or bespoke? You can use it for a lot of different styles of play, but most of its inherent systems are geared toward the retro-silver age comics of the late 90s and early 00s.

Anyway, what do you prefer? Does that change based on the genre or style of game you are looking for? If you prefer more generic systems broadly, do you want bespoke subsystems on top (a hesit mechanics in a generic game, for example)? What are your favorite games of either type, or anywhere on the continuum?

 

[Blue]

What I like about each:

Big tent systems like D&D tend to have more players, support more modes of play at the same table, and have a greater chance of a robust infrastructure of forums, analysis and discussion on the internet.

Bespoke systems have the ability to very strongly support the premise mechanically. They can laser focus, and provide play experiences that have mechanical support that a wider system doesn't -- and shouldn't -- focus on mechanically. For example, Masks: A New Generation is a teen superteam game, but the mechanical focus on who you are and who you want to become, as well as the "damage" conditions like Insecure, Angry, Guilty, and the like give it a very different play feel than a standard superhero game. Blades in the Dark, with it's very structured play loop around heists, as well as your criminal crew having it's own character sheet, gives a very focused play style unlike others - which some may love and others not as much.

I can roleplay without any rules at all. So when I have rules, I want them to (a) mechanically support the feel, genre, and themes I want to explore, and (b) be attractive to players. Bespoke is often stronger on the first, and Generic stronger on the second.

 

[deganawida]

Hmm, good question. I will try to answer to the best of my ability, though I reserve the right to contradict myself at times.

In general, I prefer bespoke. I want a system that plays to the strength of the concept. I do not want to pound a square peg into a round hold. Back in the 90s, in my teen years where I had glorious hair, I tried to make AD&D 2nd Edition fit every genre. It was a major exercise in frustration.

Continuing, as I have (allegedly) matured, and as I have posted here previously, I have grown to believe that certain settings or themes demand a bespoke system. For example, I really feel that DragonLance suffered from using AD&D classes and mechanics, as those are geared more towards hard-scrabble treasure seekers than epic fantasy heroes that Chronicles represents. Now, I haven't played the modules, but GP for XP doesn't make much sense in light of the first two trilogies, nor does a ruleset that focuses on dungeon-delving as opposed to persuasion or investigation (or running away, which they do a lot of).

Here comes the contradiction: During the whole OGL debacle, I broke down and purchased Savage Worlds Adventurer's Edition and the Fantasy Companion. Though I still don't have the hardcover for either (my order for SWADE was made the day the ran out, and too late to get a copy), I do have the PDFs, and those illustrate what is to me a neat way of mixing general with bespoke. By this I mean that the base SW system is generic, but they have companions and settings that change things significantly via new options and dials so that it becomes more bespoke. That might be my favorite path, but I suck at reading PDFs and so won't give it a real spin until I have the hardcovers.

Hope this addresses adequately the topic question.

 

[kenada]

I don’t really think of D&D as a generic system because it only addresses part of the “high fantasy” milieu. If you want to do non-party play, it doesn’t do much to support you when PCs come into conflict. In fact, PvP is usually something no one wants in their D&D game. Actually, I struggle to think of any “generic” systems that aren’t also “universal” systems. Personally, I don’t like those because I don’t like having to put my game together (I say fully aware of the irony that I’m willing to design my own system but not willing to “put together” a universal RPG).

If generic versus bespoke is more like wide versus narrow focus, then my answer is equally unhelpful. It’s “yes”. Sometimes I like a more widely focused game, and sometimes I like a narrow one. I appreciate that Blades in the Dark is on point with what it is doing thematically. Our scores may be just as diverse as adventures are in other systems, but there is a strong mechanical tie with your crew (which are all different types of criminal gangs, but there are other crews available if you want to play e.g., blue coats). For my homebrew system, I think I probably lean more towards the wider focus side of things. Like D&D, not many mechanics are attached to the party itself. Mostly about it’s about PCs being part of an adventuring party, and that directs play.

 

[Blue]

Here comes the contradiction: During the whole OGL debacle, I broke down and purchased Savage Worlds Adventurer's Edition and the Fantasy Companion. Though I still don't have the hardcover for either (my order for SWADE was made the day the ran out, and too late to get a copy), I do have the PDFs, and those illustrate what is to me a neat way of mixing general with bespoke. By this I mean that the base SW system is generic, but they have companions and settings that change things significantly via new options and dials so that it becomes more bespoke. That might be my favorite path, but I suck at reading PDFs and so won't give it a real spin until I have the hardcovers.

I don't think this is a contradiction. We've been seeing it for a long time in other systems like Fate (and FAE). Where you have a wide (and maybe truly generic) base system, and then add-on modules that takes it to a more bespoke system.

A variation on that is the whole PbtA landscape. While more of a design philosophy then a unified system, it's dozens of published and thousands of fan-made bespoke systems. But if you've played one PbtA system, you can pick up another very easily.

 

[pointofyou]

If I have an idea for a thing that doesn't fit with D&D I am perfectly happy to run a genre/setting-agnostic game such as Cypher to make that game happen. Even though the setting/genre-agnostic games I've played have expectations built in about how play happens and how the world works they're still quicker to set up for something really idiosyncratic than a game like D&D 5e is.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

When I was a kid I was in love with GURPS because it meant I could whip up just about any kind of campaign in any genre, try it out, then drop it and move on to the next experiment.

But that was a long time ago, when there really weren't as many different kinds of systems that focus on nailing specific tones and premises, and no digital distribution to make it easier to publish and buy indie games. Today, if I see that a system is being pushed as a generic toolkit, I can't get away fast enough. Just too many incredible designers and systems out there, imo. And I've yet to see a generic system that doesn't actually map to a pretty specific tone and, in some cases, genre, even when the designers don't realize it or claim otherwise.

 

[Lord Shark]

I'm not sure Blades in the Dark is the best example of a "bespoke" system, given how many Forged in the Dark games have been spun off it.

And I've long since stopped believing D&D is a "generic" or even "big tent" system. I've seen too many fantasy concepts ruined because the DM or designer felt they had to use D&D rules and the assumptions that came along with them -- how spells work, the necessity of magical healing, classes and levels, etc.

I'd rather use purpose-built systems myself than try to mash everything into a vaguely D&D-like shape.

 

[Jer]

I don't think this is a contradiction. We've been seeing it for a long time in other systems like Fate (and FAE). Where you have a wide (and maybe truly generic) base system, and then add-on modules that takes it to a more bespoke system.

My view of general systems fits along these lines. Each system has a playstyle that it supports/enforces/mandates to some degree or another. If you want your game to have the same playstyle of the game you're currently playing, then having a general system is great! Like if I'm playing Spirit of the Century and I'm enjoying it and I want to play a game with the same feel but with more of a "children of the gods" sort of setting, Fate is probably my choice. I could go with Scion, which is specifically built to be a "children of the gods" game, but the playstyle of Storyteller/Storypath is different from Fate and so the feel of the game is going to be different. Conversely if I want a different feel because I actually want a different game, I might go with Scion instead.

 

[Campbell]

I personally think there is a tendency to treat the most popular play (group oriented action adventure with characters who have fairly weak connections to the setting) as generic. Also to give particular credence to procedural narratives and treat all games built for more dramatic narratives as if that alone makes them bespoke.

There is certainly a difference in the thematic scope of different games. On the specific example given I would disagree that the crime fiction genre that Blades is built to enable is less broad than the mostly heroic party based action adventure high fantasy that defines D&D. I don't think their core stories are vastly different in terms of how broad their conceptual scope is. They have different conceptual scopes, but one does not seem more specific to me than the other.