From Bespoke to Universal: Let's Talk About TTRPG Systems and Themes

Thomas Shey

Legend
I'm trying to think of how many generic games there really are and I'm hard pressed to think of many. I used to think D&D was a generic fantasy game, but I was disabused of that notion back in 1990 when I tried to use AD&D for a fantasy setting and it didn't work at all. I don't count this as a flaw as I do not believe it was reasonable for me to expect AD&D to handle all fantasy settings equally well. Live and learn.

I tend to favor bespoke games. And when I say bespoke, I don't necessarily mean the entire rules were built from the ground up for this particular game. Only that the authors had a vision for what the game was all about and the rules exist to support that vision. Free League and Modiphius both have some house systems they use for a variety of different games only tweaking the rules to make it more appropriate to the setting. One of the more surprising successful exmples of this was the d20 adaptation of Call of Cthulhu. Given how terrible many d20 adaptations were, CoC was truly something special.

As far as generic games go, I think Savage Worlds is pretty much the only one I play today. I playted a lot of GURPs back i the 1990s, but the last time I played it was around 2005 and my players disliked it quite a bit. I don't expect I'll ever play it again. Which is too bad, because the rules are great and they work just fine for a variety of genres I like to play.

There are actually a fair number, they're just not, as a group, as popular as they once were. Besides GURPS, Hero and Savage Worlds, you have the big gold book version of Basic Roleplaying, and more recently things like Heroes and Hardships, and the recent generic version of Cepheus Engine. There's also the question of how you want to count things like Fantasy and Modern AGE, which are not intended for true universal use, but are intended for broad use (and have the degree of optional and bolt on rules you'd expect for it), our the WOIN system games.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

MGibster

Legend
There are actually a fair number, they're just not, as a group, as popular as they once were. Besides GURPS, Hero and Savage Worlds, you have the big gold book version of Basic Roleplaying, and more recently things like Heroes and Hardships, and the recent generic version of Cepheus Engine.
I always forget about BRP and I still get confused when it comes to the difference between HERO and Champions. I played Champions a few times back in the late 80s early 90s, but because we already had so much invested in GURPS, there was really no reason to go with Champions. I tend to think of games like GURPS, Champions, and Savage Worlds and toolkit games. As much as I like Savage Worlds, it's not quite the robust kits that GURPS and Champions were. (I can't comment on BRP.) For whatever reason, these toolkit games fell out of favor. But trends come and go, and I could see toolkit games making a comeback at some point.

There's also the question of how you want to count things like Fantasy and Modern AGE, which are not intended for true universal use, but are intended for broad use (and have the degree of optional and bolt on rules you'd expect for it), our the WOIN system games.
For the purposes of most discussions, I like to be fairly inclusive with definitions. If for no other reason than to avoid getting bogged down in discussions about definitions. Not knowing much about Fantasy or Modern Age, well, it sounds to me like they're toolkit games for specific genres. i.e. I could run campaigns in Fantasy Age in a wide variety of fantasy settings but it probably wouldn't be appropriate for modern horror or golden age superheroes. I'd lump such games in the same category as GURPS even if they have a narrower focus.
 

aramis erak

Legend
I always forget about BRP and I still get confused when it comes to the difference between HERO and Champions. I played Champions a few times back in the late 80s early 90s, but because we already had so much invested in GURPS, there was really no reason to go with Champions. I tend to think of games like GURPS, Champions, and Savage Worlds and toolkit games. As much as I like Savage Worlds, it's not quite the robust kits that GURPS and Champions were. (I can't comment on BRP.) For whatever reason, these toolkit games fell out of favor. But trends come and go, and I could see toolkit games making a comeback at some point.
Hero is the game system. Champions is the supers setting in every edition; up through 4th edition, it's a standalone rulebook.
Champions 4 had a sibling product: the Hero System Core Rulebook. the rules mechanics within are a subset straight out of champions 4th.

Other hero system games: Early Hero: Prior to Champions 4th and the HSR4 rulebook, it was an adapted core model. THey all have the same resolution mechanics, Skill system, advantage/disadvantage system, and list of attributes (all 8 primary and the figureds). What they don't share is the powers system; DI lacks one, references Champions; the others have very bespoke tweaks. They include...
  • Justice Inc (pulp/noir interbellum 20th C)
  • Danger International
  • Fantasy Hero
  • Star Hero
  • Robot Warriors
  • Champions 1st ed, 2nd ed, 3rd ed.
From 4th on, they moved to the universal core and supplements for all but Champions. AFAIK, 5th ed and later, chamions is a setting book. The setting books all add some optional campaign rules and a lot of advice. The setting books
  • Champions (4th, 5th, 6th)
  • Dark Champions (4th, 5th, 6th)
  • Fantasy Hero (4th, 5th, 6th)
  • Western Hero (4th, 6th)
  • Star Hero (4th, 5th, 6th)
  • Ninja Hero (4th 5th)
  • Cyber Hero (4th)
  • Horror Hero (4th)
  • Pulp Hero (5th, 6th)
  • Steampunk (6th)
  • Monster Hunter International (6th)
  • Victorian Hero (6th)
Champions and Dark Champions are supers. I've run a few one-shots.

I've run several campaigns of Fantasy Hero for HSR4. Due to my setting, we also used Ninja Her

I've played but not run Danger International; it was simply Champions less the super powers, but with characteristic maxima, and with language rules. It's intended for a variety of modern subsettings, especially Spies, superspies, mercs, spec ops, and maybe also monster hunters.
Justice Inc had psionic abilities; it's basically intended for use as a replacement for Call of Cthulhu.
Robot Warriors is Hero does Battletech. The mechs are built differently from HSR4+ vehicles.
Ninja Hero covers martial arts in general.

I find that, for Fantasy Hero/Ninja Hero, I preferred the 4th ed mode of core + setting book. (I used those two in tandem)

For the genres covered by Danger International, I'd rather use Twilight 2000 (2nd or 4th), D6 Adventure, MWWG, or EABA. Why? the HSR rules are a bit heavy for the genre, and the superspies side borders on Champions anyway... T2K has better fit of combat to expectations, d6 Adventure is fast enough and light enough for the sillier side (Think MacGuyver or The A-Team); and EABA 1E is essentially darned close to d6 system, but with more grit and better vehicle rules. MWWG - Macho Women With Guns is a solid character gen and combat that feels right for medium grit. Each sub-genre feels like it would be better done in a different game.
 

I always found generic/universal systems to be lacking in terms of a good mapping of agenda onto system. Typically they do OK for the specific genre/tone/setting and approach to play they were first aimed at, but generally fit other situations poorly. In any case most of them have traditionally been deeply classic/trad in approach. That's not so true nowadays, but even so they don't really tend to support the play I'm interested in these days.
 

DrunkonDuty

he/him
Universal systems have their uses. Mainly, you only need to know one system.

e.g.: Hero System was designed to allow for the anything goes world of supers it's very handy for doing other genres. One can use the system as the, for want of a better term, engine on which to run other genres. And it does a pretty good job.

But some bespoke systems give such specific game play/have such a specific feel, I would never consider using Hero for them. Two examples: Ars Magica and Pendragon. Both these lovingly bespoke systems do such a good job at being what they're intended to be, that trying to do it in Hero would defeat the purpose.

On the other hand, when a bespoke system doesn't achieve it's desired goal it might be worth modelling it in a universal system.

e.g.: I am doing my own home brewed Hero System version of Legend of the Five Rings. I like the setting, and there are aspects of the 3rd Ed. system I think are really good at evoking the desired effect. But overall L5R 3rd ed. doesn't actually work. I didn't like 4th ed. from the one read through I did. 5th ed. is using the silly FFG dice. I mean, it might work as a system but I don't love those dice... So I'm doing a version in Hero. It's for my own enjoyment, I doubt I'll ever run anything in it. But if do ever run anything in it, at least I know the basic system will work. (Power balance between different clans is another matter, it will require play testing to see if I got that right.)
 

How do you feel about bespoke systems versus House Systems versus "universal/generic" systems. Are there certain types of games where you prefer one over the other? What about the proliferation of one system, be it something like 5E or something like PbtA, that eats up a lot of design space in the hobby? When you decide you want to run something, how do you decide on the system?
I love the idea of generic/universal systems, but over the course of playing a lot of them, in the '90s, it became extremely clear that none of them are what they say they are, and it's a big problem. Like Champions/HERO is a good system, but it's basically squad-level combat system, that works really well for small-scale back-alley fights or small groups shooting at each other (whether with guns, superpowers, bows, magic, whatever), and it's not really "generic". GURPS is very much not "generic" or "universal" either - it's a quite gritty system that's really good at doing a certainly kind of Hollywood thriller, like, say Jurassic Park and might be okay for something like Die Hard, just barely - but really feels completely out of its element in a lot of other situations, particularly any involving significant supernatural powers, or storytelling conventions which aren't Hollywood thriller from the '80s or '90s. It doesn't even work well for, say, martial arts movies from that era.

I could go on and on. But the point is, generic/universal systems aren't. They all have something they're actually good at, and work in sympathy with, and a ton of stuff they make really weird. Some people might enjoy that weird, but it is weird. SWADE, for example, true to its name, is pretty great at pulp-y action, somewhat adjacent to GURPS, but better able to handle magic and futuristic tech. It's no accident that it's become the Rifts system replacement of choice for most people.

I do like Cortex Prime's "build-a-game" approach. I used it to build a Mass Effect RPG, looking at the various FATE, 5E and other designs people already had out there, and I was honestly happier with what I got built than I was with those others by some significant margin. It was quite a bit of effort, but still probably trivial next to designing a TT RPG from first principles. I ran it a few times and the group really liked it - unfortunately we have a dyed in the wool Mass Effect hater who is one of the most reliably available players for that group so can only play it when he isn't there, which means we haven't for quite a while. There are limits to what Cortex can do - I don't think you could easily make a particularly convincing "modern realistic tactical" kind of game using it very easily, for example.

I think there's a big difference between PtbA and 5E so it's odd to me to see them equated re: design space. PtbA is a loose set of systems and a mental approach to when and why you roll dice that has produced a wide variety of games that play extremely differently. Whereas 5E-based stuff is generally just literally D&D 5E with different "skins" on, and sometimes not even that. I think the latter is much worse for the industry, and I think the d20 Boom-Bust demonstrated why that is very well - because you get a lot of companies investing a lot of effort in products that can't stand on their own, and the moment the game they're linked to begins to falter, they all collapse too. I don't think 5E has been as bad, not even nearly, as d20 was here, because I don't think 5E has "crowded out" other RPGs to the same extent - but I do think this is a bit of an issue, and we're seeing some of the same depressing (to me) design with 5E-based games that we did with d20 stuff.

d20 Modern, I know it has its fans, everything does, is kind of the nadir of game design in a lot of ways, to me. It claimed to do all these genres and styles of gaming, and it was terrible for all of them. Lovely art. Lovely presentation. Fun, modern-feeling rulebook. Terrible game. Just terrible. This is exactly what I don't want to see - a system that doesn't do well with a certain genre, being used for it, just because people are somewhat more familiar with the basic mechanic of the system. I've literally never been more disappointed by a TT RPG. I expected them to do clever stuff and they did nothing clever at all. Most of the d20 attempts to do similar games, like Spycraft, just really didn't work for me or my group. You can't play like you're competent trained operatives it says you are in the text of the game, if the rules just completely don't support that, and instead make you a bunch of bumbling goons who make the Archer team look like peerless pros until you're like, level 7 or more.

So I guess what it comes down to for me is, I want rules that I believe support the intended experience of the game. I like rules that also aesthetically/conceptually please me, but if the rules work well for the experience, I don't mind ones I find a bit ugly. Like, I don't like d100s. Sorry. At all. But does CoC work for CoC? Yes it does. This means if I believe the rules line up with the experience, I'll happily use supposedly-generic ones - like SWADE for Rifts, or HERO for a street-level superhero campaign about biffing villains in alleys.

I do love a good set of extremely precision-made and perfect rules though - one that springs to mind is MASKS, a PtbA-based "young supers" RPG, which just wow, the main rules are so good for the generating the exact kind of action it describes. Like you do what they say, with even mildly cooperative players? You will get the result they describe. It's a beautiful thing.

I'd also say, just because the rules are made for a specific game, doesn't mean they work for it, and I'm staring at Exalted 1E when I say this, particularly. Don't get me wrong. I loved Exalted 1E, it was a huge breath of fresh air. I think its existence inspired a lot of people, and probably helped keep fantasy going as an RPG genre when it was declining and becoming an older-player thing. But goddamn those rules sucked to use, and very often did not absolutely NOT produce the results that were apparently intended, especially as they were extremely complicated. So you have to assess on a case-by-case basis.

I'm also exceptionally lucky in that my main group of players is very good at picking up new rules and whilst they groan, much more willing to than it sounds like most groups are, so we can use the right tool for the job without causing havoc.
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
Universal systems have their uses. Mainly, you only need to know one system.

e.g.: Hero System was designed to allow for the anything goes world of supers it's very handy for doing other genres. One can use the system as the, for want of a better term, engine on which to run other genres. And it does a pretty good job.

But some bespoke systems give such specific game play/have such a specific feel, I would never consider using Hero for them. Two examples: Ars Magica and Pendragon. Both these lovingly bespoke systems do such a good job at being what they're intended to be, that trying to do it in Hero would defeat the purpose.

On the other hand, when a bespoke system doesn't achieve it's desired goal it might be worth modelling it in a universal system.

e.g.: I am doing my own home brewed Hero System version of Legend of the Five Rings. I like the setting, and there are aspects of the 3rd Ed. system I think are really good at evoking the desired effect. But overall L5R 3rd ed. doesn't actually work. I didn't like 4th ed. from the one read through I did. 5th ed. is using the silly FFG dice. I mean, it might work as a system but I don't love those dice... So I'm doing a version in Hero. It's for my own enjoyment, I doubt I'll ever run anything in it. But if do ever run anything in it, at least I know the basic system will work. (Power balance between different clans is another matter, it will require play testing to see if I got that right.)

And of course there are always extremely specific campaign ideas that nothing particularly focused is going to work for. Sometimes you can get together a couple of related systems to make it work, but sometimes you're either doing it from the ground up or a generic system is a good starting point at least.
 

a dyed in the wool Mass Effect hater
I am baffled that such a person can be allowed to exist in this world. I can see hating what the game did to itself in games 2 and 3, but how can you hate Mass Effect 1? It's classic Trek-ian space-opera back when Bioware actually wrote good. And if you hate that I don't want to know you. :LOL:

===

But on a serious note --

I agree that most universal systems are only universal within their gamespace. Which is fine if you really like that gamespace and want to put different "skins" on it, or experience it in different genres. Just don't pretend that the system can actually do another gamespace just as well.

For example, I really enjoy the hyper-competent, hyper-dramatic characters that Fate tends to churn out and I'm happy to play that style in almost any genre, be it supers, steampunk, fantasy, modern-day spies, etc. I go in know I'm going to get "Fate, and you're spies" (or whatever) in the same way I'd go into a D&D game set in ancient Greece where it's "D&D, and we using the Greek mythology monster palette".

But I wanted to play a game set in ancient Greece where what matters is my attention to the concerns of the gods and we focus in on my virtues (rather than kill-monsters-take-stuff-level-up), then I've acknowledged that need to be a different gamespace from D&D. I need to bein the Agon gamespace or something designed to get me the feel I'm trying to get.

System Matters (tm).
 


Thomas Shey

Legend
I am baffled that such a person can be allowed to exist in this world. I can see hating what the game did to itself in games 2 and 3, but how can you hate Mass Effect 1? It's classic Trek-ian space-opera back when Bioware actually wrote good. And if you hate that I don't want to know you. :LOL:

===

But on a serious note --

I agree that most universal systems are only universal within their gamespace. Which is fine if you really like that gamespace and want to put different "skins" on it, or experience it in different genres. Just don't pretend that the system can actually do another gamespace just as well.

I suspect that's going to turn on how significant a given observer thinks different gamespaces are in the first place, and how desirable those variations are.

For example, I really enjoy the hyper-competent, hyper-dramatic characters that Fate tends to churn out and I'm happy to play that style in almost any genre, be it supers, steampunk, fantasy, modern-day spies, etc. I go in know I'm going to get "Fate, and you're spies" (or whatever) in the same way I'd go into a D&D game set in ancient Greece where it's "D&D, and we using the Greek mythology monster palette".

But I wanted to play a game set in ancient Greece where what matters is my attention to the concerns of the gods and we focus in on my virtues (rather than kill-monsters-take-stuff-level-up), then I've acknowledged that need to be a different gamespace from D&D. I need to bein the Agon gamespace or something designed to get me the feel I'm trying to get.

System Matters (tm).

I don't really disagree with this, but I think it can be easy to overstate how much it does for some people. Its always going to be a range of degree.
 

Remove ads

Top