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

[Bernard Corwin]

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 judgment is based on two things: Does it do what it claims to do, and does it do what I need it to do for the campaign I'm planning. I often want a universal system because it doesn't come with "setting baggage", or because I want to combine genres.

I think that different "universal" rule sets have different intentions and are good for different things. I've played and run a lot of GURPS, Savage Worlds, and HERO, and they clearly can't do everything. GURPS is good for Hard SF but not Supers, SW is great for pulp-flavored things, and HERO is good for supers and modern.

 

[Reynard]

I get the strong sense that I asked the question poorly, since so many people are arguing against generic systems in general.

What i really wanted to know is do you (like me) have a go-to setting or milieu against which you measure a system that purports to be generic or universal?

The actual question of Star Wars or my personal RPG are less important.

 

[Laurefindel]

I get the strong sense that I asked the question poorly, since so many people are arguing against generic systems in general.

What i really wanted to know is do you (like me) have a go-to setting or milieu against which you measure a system that purports to be generic or universal?

The actual question of Star Wars or my personal RPG are less important.

The discussion was unavoidable because it relates to the underlying question of what we think a system should do or measure to.

Also, answering "no" and leaving it at that is not really participating in a conversation, and i'm pretty sure you didn't mean to make a thread only for those who agree with you.

But yeah, it's frustrating how many threads end up debating the premise of the question rather than the question itself. Sometimes its unavoidable it seems, or else takes a lot of energy to keep it on tracks.

 

[John Dallman]

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.

I fear we will never agree over this. The sole piece of Star Wars media I've ever taken in was A New Hope, in 1977 on its first run in the cinema, at age 16. I found it pretty dull, and have never wanted to see any more. I've read some of the terrible struggles people have trying to do Star Wars with GURPS, which I prefer for its rationalism and detail. My feeling is that if a game system does Star Wars in a way that pleases Star Wars fans, that's a fairly strong signal that I will find the game annoying. It's not a killer in itself, but it definitely pushes a game system down the priority queue.

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?

I want to be able to do investigations and run mysteries, on a scale from "ordinary people" to "quite capable people."

 

[zarionofarabel]

I get the strong sense that I asked the question poorly, since so many people are arguing against generic systems in general.

What i really wanted to know is do you (like me) have a go-to setting or milieu against which you measure a system that purports to be generic or universal?

The actual question of Star Wars or my personal RPG are less important.

Supers of some kind because supers needs to cover everything from lowly normal human with some disposable income all the way to God level beings. It's part of the reason why I think the only systems that could be universal must be extremely abstract, because the only supers systems that cover the whole range of supers stuff are very abstract. It's also part of the reason why I am a fan of purpose built systems over generic ones. Generic systems suffer the "jack of all trades, master of none" thing. I would much rather learn ten different systems that do ten different things well, than one system that does a not great job at anything.

 

[DammitVictor]

I don't really have a litmus test for generic games; most of the time, if I'm trying to run something I don't have a system for, I run Cortex... and Cortex isn't really a "generic game", it's a cave with a box of scraps.

I do have a Holy Grail, though, for superhero games, which are as close to "generic" as you get outside of trying to support a huge variety of tones.

My Holy Grail for superheroes is the Green Lantern Corps. Not an individual Green Lantern on the Justice League... an entire campaign where every PC is a Green Lantern, and they all feel individually satisfying and satisfyingly individual to play.

 

[payn]

What i really wanted to know is do you (like me) have a go-to setting or milieu against which you measure a system that purports to be generic or universal?

No, I dont. Instead, I lean on genre conventions such as hard sci-fi, fantasy sci-fi, space opera etc... If I leaned on a particular setting, I dont think it would be generic or universal any longer.

Some examples, if its intended to be space opera, then I think the PCs ought to be a bit neotrad in construction. The mechanics should lean into the narratives. If I am looking at hard sci-fi, id expect the rules to be a bit more on the sim side mechanically and less forgiving on the PCs. YMMV.

 

[Blue]

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.

Sorry, I have to disagree when it comes to universal RPGs. Not in the general sense of any RPG, but specifically for an RPG that brands itself as universal or generic, you need to mechanically cover the core of what you are running.

Let's go back to the point I made -- we can run any genre without rules. You don't need rules. For rules to be worth it, they must not just allow you to run in a genre or setting, but actively support the tropes and archetypes of it. Take the load off the GM's shoulders and codify so everyone has a shared, consistant understanding.

Now, you'll notice that I didn't cover all of those aspects for every example I gave. Because for any one system you're correct -- not everything is needed. What is needed however are the one that support the core parts of the setting/(sub)genre. Doing a Cthulhu game without mechanics for insanity, or a Mad Max without rules for vehicle chases is a non-starter.

So, given that lacking rules to support the core concepts doesn't cut it, then when you are making a universal system you need to cover all of those. It's only the conceit that a system is universal that requires it. And as I mentioned, I'm perfectly fine if the GM picks and chooses what rules modules to enable for their campaign, like Fate or Cortex Prime does it.

But I gave a half a dozen reasonable RPG suggestions, along with a few things that the rules need to cover for each. The fact that that covers a large swath of different rules isn't important except when trying to build a system that can run any of them.

 

[Blue]

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

Sorry, "our" was ambiguous and therefore I took it into the most likely context.