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

Staffan · Apr 1, 2024

Ralif Redhammer said:
These days I have little interest in universal systems. With a few exceptions (Mork Borg's system for example, which while it does different genres, unifies them with a very specific aesthetic), I'd much rather a system designed to do one genre or milieu well than one that does multiple with less specificity.

I see both sides of this issue. On one hand, a bespoke system for a particular game can really bring home the stuff that's particular to that game. For example, decay is a major theme in Mutant: Year Zero*, and the resolution system brings that home with the way pushing yourself can lead to your gear and/or you yourself breaking. And in Castle Falkenstein, you are supposed to play nobles and other characters "of quality", and of course that sort of folk won't play with something as common as dice – no, you use playing cards as randomizers.

On the other hand, a universal system has the advantage that once you know how to play it, you don't need to learn a whole new system if you switch campaigns. If you can play Savage Worlds Deadlands, you can play Savage Worlds Flash Gordon or Savage Worlds 50 Fathoms. You might need to pick up some new twists, but that's easy compared to going from D&D to Traveller.

And in between, you have the "house system", where you publish different stand-alone games using variants on the same core system. Both Star Trek Adventures and Infinity the RPG (and a bunch of other games from Modiphius) use "the 2d20 system": roll 2d20 separately vs a target number and count successes, spend various points for extra dice, additional successes can either give an improved result now or be banked for later, and the GM has their own pool of points to spend to cause trouble for the PCs. But the stats are different, the way critical successes work are different, the way you make PCs are different, and the games have different subsystems for various purposes. Someone familiar with ST:A would have an easy time learning Infinity, but you couldn't just bring things over from one game to the other.

* Year Zero has turned into more of a house system for Free League, but the original system was bespoke for that particular game.

grimmgoose · Apr 1, 2024

I think I've found myself to be in the minority, in that I prefer "universal" systems to "bespoke" ones.

Generally, I find that bespoke systems come with the assumption of a very specific narrative and/or worldbuilding. I prefer to create my own worlds, universes, settings, etc., which means that if your system comes with a pre-loaded setting, I'm out. Worldbuilding is half the fun for me and my players.

I will admit that bespoke systems seem much easier to market - I remember for example almost pulling the trigger on Eat the Reich, but all it really did was make me think, "I should really create a 'monsters kill nazis' setting in Savage Worlds...".

I should clarify that I really only play one "universal" system - Savage Worlds - though I've tried a few (BRP, Genesys, FATE). I've found Savage Worlds to be the closest system that fits my own personal design philosophy. I'm always on the hunt for more generic systems, though they do seem to have fallen out of favor.

Umbran · Apr 1, 2024

Reynard said:
No, but it would change the nature of engagement with the thing.

Well, yes.

But in looking at "Bespoke vs Generic", Bespoke (someone else did the design on a framework) and Bespoke (I did my own design on a framework) are both still Bespoke, aren't they?

Reynard said:
PbtA is a family of games with a similar design sensibility (how similar depends on the game) while Cortex is a system one uses to create one's game.

You seem to be putting the focus on who does the design, rather than whether the design was intended to be general, or intended to support specific genre/play experience goals.

Reynard said:
People inined to that style would start there rather than, say, trying to hack Dungeon World.

"inined"? I am not sure what the intended word there is.

Hacking Dungeon World seems like the least informed approach to doing the thing. And I suppose there's the potential to find something highly innovative in that. But it also likely includes a lot of "reinventing the wheel" or flawed design that could be avoided.

Joshua Randall · Apr 2, 2024

Umbran said:
"System matters" doesn't mean, "all games should be completely bespoke and written from scratch". System matters, at least to me, means, "use the right tool for the job you want done."

Fair point, Umbran.

I just have seen so many bafflingly wrong-headed system choices that I feel like 'system matters' still isn't taken seriously enough.

No, you should not 'file the serial numbers' off AW to use it for your kill-monsters-take-stuff-level-up game. That is a huge mismatch between system and intended gameplay.

Also no, you should not 'file the serial numbers' off D&D/d20 to use it for your Regency-dances-and-smoldering-glances game. (Dibs on that game title BTW, it just popped into my head.)

Of course, in any mass of things, some will be badly done, so perhaps RPGs aren't any worse off than everything else in that regard.

Ralif Redhammer · Apr 2, 2024

Staffan said:
I see both sides of this issue. On one hand, a bespoke system for a particular game can really bring home the stuff that's particular to that game. For example, decay is a major theme in Mutant: Year Zero*, and the resolution system brings that home with the way pushing yourself can lead to your gear and/or you yourself breaking. And in Castle Falkenstein, you are supposed to play nobles and other characters "of quality", and of course that sort of folk won't play with something as common as dice – no, you use playing cards as randomizers.

On the other hand, a universal system has the advantage that once you know how to play it, you don't need to learn a whole new system if you switch campaigns. If you can play Savage Worlds Deadlands, you can play Savage Worlds Flash Gordon or Savage Worlds 50 Fathoms. You might need to pick up some new twists, but that's easy compared to going from D&D to Traveller.

And in between, you have the "house system", where you publish different stand-alone games using variants on the same core system. Both Star Trek Adventures and Infinity the RPG (and a bunch of other games from Modiphius) use "the 2d20 system": roll 2d20 separately vs a target number and count successes, spend various points for extra dice, additional successes can either give an improved result now or be banked for later, and the GM has their own pool of points to spend to cause trouble for the PCs. But the stats are different, the way critical successes work are different, the way you make PCs are different, and the games have different subsystems for various purposes. Someone familiar with ST:A would have an easy time learning Infinity, but you couldn't just bring things over from one game to the other.

* Year Zero has turned into more of a house system for Free League, but the original system was bespoke for that particular game.

I suppose I should add the caveat that I prefer bespoke systems that are easy to learn. If I have to re-learn and re-teach an entire system just to play a game, it's got to be something I can fit into my brain, but more importantly will not be a barrier to the players learning the game as well.

In my opinion, a good game has themes that are reiterated and elevated by the mechanics. That guide you to a specific style of play and interfacing with the world. There's a reason why Sanity points are an intrinsic part of Call of Cthulhu, but have rarely taken off when used in D&D.

In any case, in short, bespoke or generic, a new gaming system should not be onerous to learn. I'm way beyond the point in my life where I want to deal with a significant amount of crunch.

Thomas Shey · Apr 2, 2024

Joshua Randall said:
Fair point, Umbran.

I just have seen so many bafflingly wrong-headed system choices that I feel like 'system matters' still isn't taken seriously enough.

There's two elements that lead to this I think:

1. Familiarity Trumps All: There are people who think what really matters is ease of use, and to them that translates into familiarity. They'll steadfastedly claim that their System Of Choice handles campaign style X fine, no matter how badly it seems suited for it on the face of it.

2. System Doesn't Matter: And there are people who just disagree with the premise from the get-go, and consider the only function of a game system is to do the minimal (by whatever standard they have) handling necessary for the sort of experience they're trying for, and anything else is obtrusive.

(It should be noted I probably lean into generic more than custom-built systems, but I'm also not hesitant to tune the system for the purposes I'm using it for.)

MGibster · Apr 2, 2024

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.

aramis erak · Apr 2, 2024

My preference is for unified core mechanic with adaptation. Example being Year Zero Engine or 2d20.

I've seen several modes of universals

Adapted core. The core mechanics get altered for the setting, and each setting is a standalone game with shared mechanics (GDW House System, older BRP)
Included Core: the core mechanics don't get altered, but may be extended, each setting is a standalone game with the core mechanics bound in (Rolemaster/Spacemaster)
Core plus Setting Books: core mechanics are a standalone product, settings are in separate books, and may include some modifications/extensions, but don't change core mechanics (GURPS, Hero, EABA)
Core toolset plus setting books: the core rules are not intended to be a coherent system, but a set of tools which various settings use. (CORPS, Cortex Prime)
Toolset adapted core settings book (Fuzion, FUDGE, Cortex Plus, Cortex Classic, 2d20). Each book uses a subset of the core to make a standalone semi-bespoke game.

My preference is adapted core or toolset adapted Core. I prefer not to have to memorize patches...

aramis erak · Apr 2, 2024

Umbran said:
So, I am not sure why the book is what makes the difference. If someone wrote, "How to Write PbtA Playbooks" would that change what PbtA fundamentally is?

Bycreating a standard from which to modify; Vincent Baker has apparently refused to define how far from it is too far to claim to be it.

Sentinel Comics is strongly influenced by AW. But is it PBTA? most would say no; Vincent Baker says yes. (And is in the credits for the starter kit.)

MASHED looks very close to AW, but with a few adaptations of the core mechanic - small ones, emphasizing the timers.

I could see simple rethemes such as MASHed being labeled AWE.
Somewhat further afield labeled PBTA.
"Where's the influence of AW?" games being denied either.

Vincent saw that as a potential and opted not to go there.

So the AWE/PBTA space is a wild west of levels. Good for creativity, bad for marketing.

Staffan · Apr 2, 2024

MGibster said:
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.

That's my point: every system has a particular tone, even if you change the paint. D&D's gonna D&D. It might be D&D in space (Starfinder), or D&D as a modern action movie (d20 Modern), but it's still gonna be D&D. GURPS is gonna be crunchy and tactical. It can be medieval/fantasy crunchy, or Victorian crunchy, or dino-hunting time-travel crunchy, but GURPS gonna GURPS.

This means that a generic game of that sort will appeal a lot to people with a taste for a particular tone. If Savage Worlds's pulpiness is right up your alley, being able to use slightly tweaked versions of it for both fantasy, sci-fi, horror, and swashbuckling is a positive. But it won't do for something like Game of Thrones with its focus on intrigues and stuff like that. You could certainly play Savage Worlds in Westeros, but it would absolutely suck for the kind of power play the series is known for.

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

Staffan

Legend

grimmgoose

Explorer

Umbran

Mod Squad

Joshua Randall

Legend

Ralif Redhammer

Legend

Thomas Shey

Legend

MGibster

Legend

aramis erak

Legend

aramis erak

Legend

Staffan

Legend

Similar Threads