Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="shadow" data-source="post: 149587" data-attributes="member: 2182">I disagree with this basic assumption.  I find "universal" systems far superior for two basic reasons.1. First and foremost, I hate having to learn a new system every time I want to switch settings.  Unlike traditional games, RPGs have a high learning curve.  It usually takes me several sessions to get confortable with a new system.  Small changes in the system are OK, but I hate to have to relearn everything just to play in a different setting.2. Second of all, I really haven't ever found a particular setting that I love.  I really enjoy creating my own setting, rather than having to use a publishsed one.  For that reason I would much rather have a generic rule "tool kit" that I can plug into my world than have to read through twenty pages of setting information to get to the "meat" of the game.  Unfortunately to many setting based games are difficult to modify or change without destroying them.  For example, while I like the technology and the idea of magic in Shadowrun I would want to tone down the magic level to make magic more hidden and mysterious and eliminate metahumans.  However, in doing so it would completely destroy the game sytem.  Suddenly teh Essence stat becomes very meaningless (you just have to keep it above zero) because with the lack of magic, being healed by magic becomes unlikely, eliminating the penalties associated with low essence (magic healing being less effective).  Eliminating metahumans and lowering the magic level completely destroys the character creation method which is based on magic and race.While universal systems might not be perfect for every game, I think they are far superior to setting based systems that work for one and only one setting.</blockquote>

Verification