Do you have a "litmus test" setting for generic rule sets?

[Desdichado]

For me, a litmus test for a generic system needs to be able to do more than one thing, so it's more like 3-4 litmus tests; I need a good Star Wars-like space opera, a good horror, good fantasy ("high" and "low" equally well served) and maybe a supers. If it can't do all of those at least adequately, it's not generic enough to really be considered generic.

Of course, it also has to be fit my tastes. Be relatively rules-lite, assume TotM combat, yet offer some meaningful character personalization. But without getting into optimization/power-builds. And scale for an entire campaign without breaking as you get further into it, like D&D does.

 

[Parmandur]

I don't believe a system (except for something super low-crunch like Fate or Fudge) can be fully "generic", I would agree that Star Wars is a good example of a very broad Setting that can test a game meant to express a wide genre range or combine various "power levels" whether we are talking about Tech Level or low/high magic or even character power level. Star Wars can have Cassian Andor or Emperor Palpatine, Han Solo or Obi-Wan Kenobee, C-3PO or Bobba Fett.

There is a reason Fantasy Flight Games was able to take their Star Wars system and expand it to a multi-genre approach, and why Brotherwise Games has a thinly veild Star Wars with serial numbers filed off as one of their three core settings for the Plotweaver system.

I would also suggest Bronze Age Marvel Comics (70s/80s) as a similar broad Setting: Conan the Barbarian, Do tor Strange, and Iron Man teaming up against Godzilla and Megatron?

 

[Laurefindel]

No, I don't have a Litmus test setting.

I'm with @Bill Zebub on this: if a system designed to do X is generic enough to easily do Star Wars, it already lost my interest (which I guess is a litmus test of its own).

Now, a game system can have many qualities. Being "generic" is not one of the qualities I'm looking for, but I do appreciate systems that are agile or flexible enough to make interesting adaptations. So I do like when a system designed to do X can also do Star Wars (my own Star Wars game is based on The One Ring's system), but I never rate a system for its ability to make Star Wars, or any other specific setting really.

 

[VHawkwinter]

I was talking with a friend about what sort of setting or milieu I should use to test the early version of the rules for my homegrown RPG, and after mulling it for a while I realized that Star Wars was my general "litmus test" setting for any set of generic or broadly applicable rules. Without speaking to the quality of any particular Star Wars piece of media, I will say unequivocally that Star Wars is the most gamable setting in the pop-geek-culture universe, and for me anyway, if a "generic" rule set cannot do Star Wars, it isn't for me.

So do you have a setting or milieu that is your "litmus test" for any given set of generic/universal/etc rules you want to try? Do you demand a rule set be able to do heroic fantasy or Star trek or Cthulhu investigations?

My "generic system" test is to try to build 3-4 fictional characters that to see if it can model their abilities that are often unsupported.

• Edward Elric.
• Ryu from Breath of Fire.
• a Goa'uld.
• maybe Naruto or Ichigo.

If it can handle all of those, it can handle any characters I may want to run/play.

The gameplay still needs to be fun of course.

 

[soviet]

I mean a game designed and marketed to be be "generic" or "universal".

I published such a game. My intent, and as far as I understand the intent of other such designers/publishers, is not to create something that can apply to any genre and any playstyle. That would be basically impossible. The universality is regarding genre and setting only. So you can run Star Wars with GURPS, but it will be quite a technical, simulationist playstyle, because that's what GURPS does. You can run a dungeon crawl with FATE, but it will be quite a heroic, narrative dungeon crawl because that's what FATE does.

 

[Blue]

Generic rules? I don't care if they can handle a setting/(sub)genre/IP, I care if they can mechanically support them. Anyone can run an RPG without any rules, if the rules aren't actively supporting the feel by themselves, it's the wrong set of rules for a setting.

Which means that I've found most generic rules not to actually be (even near) universal, because the bar is above simply allowing a setting.

If you want a test if a system is actually universal, go for some diverse types:

• A historic Call of Cthulhu game, where the characters need to solve mysteries, conduct heists, handle social challenges, globe-trot, deal with going insane, and entering combat is already a loss condition.
• A Mad Max style over-the-top post-apocalyptic that goes from resource management to fleets of vehicles chasing a convoy (chase rules, etc).
• Superheroes up to Hall of Justice/Avengers level.
• Something like Warhammer, dark and gritty with a chaos tainted magic system that's an active danger to use.
• Hard SF, including explorative (both system and on-planet), playable aliens with vastly different base power levels, vehicles, tech gear, body enhancements, and ship management + combat.
• A teenaged supernatural RPG around a high school, including mechanics for bonds between characters (PCs and NPCs), loyalty, reputation, and all that jazz.

Again, if the system is calling itself generic or universal, it's actively supporting those mechanically, not just allowing them to happen with GM adjudication. (GM picking rules modules to use or adjusting knobs ahead of time or in prep is just fine.)

 

[Blue]

The vast majority of our gaming is fantasy, so any genre-flexible system needs to have that covered.

Um, no?

I'll even go as far as before the OGL debacle spinning off a bunch of "D&D killers", D&D so thoroughly dominated fantasy that we saw a lot more proliferation in other genres. What we had were systems inspired by previous editions of D&D like the OSR movement and Pathfinder (even if they both came into their own thing), fantasy heartbreakers (also inspired) and some systems that went for very different feel than D&D to fulfill missing niches.

But looking at the vast number of games out there, especially indie games, genres that weren't dominated by a huge player had a lot more proliferation in it. Look at just the wide swath of PbtA games.

Fantasy is in no way the "vast majority" of RPGs.

EDIT: Fixed typos.

 

[soviet]

Generic rules? I don't care if they can handle a setting/(sub)genre/IP, I care if they can mechanically support them. Anyone can run an RPG without any rules, if the rules aren't actively supporting the feel by themselves, it's the wrong set of rules for a setting.

Which means that I've found most generic rules not to actually be (even near) universal, because the bar is above simply allowing a setting.

If you want a test if a system is actually universal, go for some diverse types:

• A historic Call of Cthulhu game, where the characters need to solve mysteries, conduct heists, handle social challenges, globe-trot, deal with going insane, and entering combat is already a loss condition.
• A Mad Max style over-the-top post-apocalyptic that goes from resource management to fleets of vehicles chasing a convoy (chase rules, etc).
• Superheroes up to Hall of Justice/Avengers level.
• Something like Warhammer, dark and gritty with a chaos tainted magic system that's an active danger to use.
• Hard SF, including explorative (both system and on-planet), playable aliens with vastly different base power levels, vehicles, tech gear, body enhancements, and ship management + combat.
• A teenaged supernatural RPG around a high school, including mechanics for bonds between characters (PCs and NPCs), loyalty, reputation, and all that jazz.

Again, if the system is calling itself generic or universal, it's actively supporting those mechanically, not just allowing them to happen with GM adjudication. (GM picking rules modules to use or adjusting knobs ahead of time or in prep is just fine.)

This makes a lot of assumptions about what RPGs 'must' cover, including combat systems, resource management, bespoke subsystems, and equipment shopping lists. None of those are necessary.

 

[dbm]

Um, no?

I’m talking about my group. Do you know my group better than I do?

 

[VHawkwinter]

This makes a lot of assumptions about what RPGs 'must' cover, including combat systems, resource management, bespoke subsystems, and equipment shopping lists. None of those are necessary.

"Universality" would imply those things are available if you want them. The most universal system I've seen is definitely GURPS, but if you want to run Forgotten Realms (GURPS Version), the official magic systems are not up to the task, though you can build most other missing stuff with existing GURPS subsystems. But no system is truly universal.