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

[soviet]

I get what you're saying, but I have a feeling that at least some aspects of genre and some aspects of playstyle overlap.

I feel an ammo-tracking combat system, for instance, doesn't fit well with space opera genre, but suggests something more Tom Clancy-esque.

I'm happy to concede it's tricky/subtle - eg something Jason Bourne-esque has the veneer of Clancy-esque-ness but would probably suffer if we used ammo-tracking.

Here's a question: suppose the ruleset allows a "hard move" along the lines of You're out of ammo! That supports genre, but also playstyle - it does make resources matter in some fashion. And not every generic system will necessarily permit that sort of move from the GM.

(EDIT: That turned out not to really be a question, but more a prompt to thoughts/reflection. Hopefully it still makes sense.)

What an open-input conflict resolution system lets you do is give weight to the factors you're interested in. So, if you want to run a sort of hard scrabble post apocalypse game where scarcity of resources is a Big Deal, then you can make the securing of those things a goal of conflicts, failure to secure those things a stake of defeat, and lack of those things an impediment to other actions.

So, conflicts in the game world are about trying to find more bullets and food, or how to divide up the bullets and food that are available. If you lose a conflict around shooting, we might say that you ran out of bullets, or you are on your last two bullets (better make 'em count). If you lose a conflict around travel, or around maintenance of the group's shelter, we might say that the food has run out, or gone bad. People will also try to steal your food and bullets, directly or indirectly. If you have no bullets, you can't shoot anyone, so you can't win any firefight conflicts. If you have no food, you will start to get penalties to physical activities in general, and unrest in your community, and eventually sickness and death.

None of this needs a defined subsystem around Magazine Capacity and Bullets Found, or Food Resources and the Effects of Starvation. It just needs players to use the tools the system already gives you.

Here's something I wrote in another forum about how to represent metaphysical factors like the Dark Side, Sanity in CoC, Humanity in Vampire, etc using conflict resolution games like the infamous Other Worlds:

So let's say I'm running a Star Wars game and you're playing a Force user. We want to represent the lure of the Dark Side.

In a lot of games we would need to have a whole subsystem of dark side points worked out - what they mean, how you get them, how you lose them, and so on. But here we just give you a flaw called Tempted by the Dark Side 30 as part of your Rogue Jedi trademark.

In play your character gives in to his inner rage and butchers a load of Sand People. You use Tempted by the Dark Side as a supporting ability in the fight. Maybe if you lose the conflict though, I'll give you another Flaw called Blood on his Hands 30.

Later your character is trying to befriend a wayward alien in the forest. I decide to use your Tempted by the Dark Side ability as a negative trait, penalising your roll. The alien senses a darkness in you and is wary.

Later still your character is trying to infiltrate a Sith cult. You reveal the blackness in your soul and use Tempted by the Dark Side 30 as the primary ability in the persuasion conflict.

Later again your character finds a Sith artifact. It speaks to the evils inside you and you are tempted to merge the tainted weapon into your body. I as GM use your Tempted by the Dark Side flaw to in effect attack you and make you want to do this. You resist with your Self Discipline ability.

Later again you are trying to repent at the Crystal Gates of Valeria. You use your Saved the Princess ability, supported by your Chaste, Merciful, and Self Discipline abilities, to try to 'heal' your Tempted by the Dark Side ability and remove it from your character sheet to move back firmly into the light.

All of this was done without the need for any special rules (or even any planning). We just write down this vague metaphysical force as an ability and use the normal rules to bring it in when it might be relevant.

 

[soviet]

I was thinking about that and I believe the sheer amount of 5E conversions proves its a flexible, but limited, universal system.

The sheer amount of people who die from eating spoiled food proves that spoiled food is delicious!

 

[Reynard]

I was thinking about that and I believe the sheer amount of 5E conversions proves its a flexible, but limited, universal system.

There is an interesting question: if something is easily hackable (Shadowdark, say) does that mean it is a generic or universal system? I don't think so. I think it just means that the core of the system has flexibility of presentation built into it.

 

[payn]

There is an interesting question: if something is easily hackable (Shadowdark, say) does that mean it is a generic or universal system? I don't think so. I think it just means that the core of the system has flexibility of presentation built into it.

That is the boat that I put 5E in. I think it was designed to be modular, so its easy to hack. I see cyberpunk, sci-fi etc.. reskins and they all feel more like modules for the system.

 

[soviet]

That is the boat that I put 5E in. I think it was designed to be modular, so its easy to hack. I see cyberpunk, sci-fi etc.. reskins and they all feel more like modules for the system.

I think this is to much more to do with 5e's market dominance than any factor of the game design.

 

[payn]

I think this is to much more to do with 5e's market dominance than any factor of the game design.

 

[dragoner]

In regards to Star Wars, maybe Alien, I like the aesthetics of that universe.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

I was thinking about that and I believe the sheer amount of 5E conversions proves its a flexible, but limited, universal system.

Agreed. Continuing down that rabbit hole of thought, I believe there are other systems that are flexible enough to convert most ideas and settings in a similar way. We don't see those very often from publishers because the motive is to broaden their market. Obviously, you're not going to waste a lot of time or money tapping into smaller markets or audiences than your own.

Savage Worlds immediately comes to mind as a system designed for flexibility and adaptability. I think Deadlands actually thrives better using this ruleset than their own.

Genesys was born from the core system of the Star Wars RPG. They stripped it down, refined it, and made it suitable for non-specific settings and IPs. But I found the specific settings (Terrinoth, Netrunner) were more interesting than the idea of having "generic" rules themselves. It's like unpainted miniatures; they may look interesting when you buy them, but you still need to do some work before you can enjoy their full potential.

Modiphius seems to have figured out their own formula for their game systems. Perhaps a generic system is just really a collecton of mechanics you can use for whatever game you want to play. Assuming the mechanics are designed for the kind of play you enjoy.

 

[chuckdee]

Personally, I think even generic rulesets need to have a focus. GURPS, though it does heroic, is more focused on realism and that's very evident in its system. HERO is the opposite. Fate Core is focused on cinematic. Though you can do anything in these systems, there is a focus. Therefore, I don't think that any setting is a litmus test for all systems.

 

[Reynard]

Therefore, I don't think that any setting is a litmus test for all systems.

Sure, but that was never a claim or the question. The question was whether YOU, when looking to use a generic system, have setting you like to test the system against because that setting pretty well covers your preferences in a way that tells you whether the system will work for you.