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

[Thomas Shey]

1) With respect, a "hard" turn into a different discussion would be, like starting with damage on a miss, and ending with... cake vs pie. Going from, "I test generic games this way, How about you?" to "Generic games... not so generic?" is a slight turn, still original topic adjacent.

We simply disagree about the severity, then. A discussion that essentially negates the original question seems a pretty hard turn to me.

2) Useful to whom? The content here is largely democratized - folks talk about what they want to talk about. If they didn't want to stick strictly to your topic, maybe that's telling you something about your original topic's utility to anyone but yourself.

I can see the argument there, but I'm still not sold "I don't like/believe in the premise of the original question in the opening post, so I'll do my best to make it irrelevant" is a habit that's good to get into. I could do that a lot around here, and actively avoid doing so and would like to encourage others to think about whether they want to.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Any system that could model the Marvel Universe would pass my litmus test, but my standards focus on simulation over other aspects of RPGs, so they certainly wouldn't work for everybody.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, but this doesn't mean you need to have a bespoke combat system, a bespoke driving system, a bespoke spaceship maintenance system, etc. You can have a broad resolution system that covers all those things and more besides.

You can, but IMO such a resolution system won't model any of those very accurately. I much prefer bespoke systems to model things that are actually different. Otherwise, to me you're placing the mechanics over the setting, and I don't want that.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think past attempts where for universal. No need for modules or adjustment, this system is built to do everything. The modern approach seems to be more of a base foundation mechanic like Gensys, YZE, PbtA, etc.. that adds flavor on top as a finishing touch.

There can be matters of degree here.

Hero has had a power system set up to be modified internally with Advantages and Limitations for a very long time that makes it a more useful tool than what exists in a lot of avowedly universal/generic systems (which have a tendency, though not, ah, "universal" to just use a fairly generalized, somewhat bland system for paranormal abilities and figure that it'll do duty in enough settings to get by; some of them add in more optional systems over time to cover more ground (this is the tact GURPS took)). But it still had some baked in assumptions that it did not have built-in tools to address for a long time. That made it more flexible than a lot of paranormal systems, but still not entirely covering all ground you might.

Late in the day (I don't remember if it was 5e or 6e) Steve Long inserted some discussion of, essentially metasystemic, modifications to the structure when just working within the extent structure wasn't going to quite get the job done. This included such things as methods of buying spells where the construction of the spell itself (while still used to supply the mechanical framework of application in play) wasn't at least the primary thing of telling you how accessible it was going to be to the character (i.e. what it would cost them to acquire that spell/power).

The earlier approach alone helped considerably over simply pre-canned powers/spells, but I don't think it entirely came into its own until the discussion of systemized ways to reframe that system; people could do it without Steve Long's permission of course, but they might feel hesitant to get into the weeds there, and might not be sure of a good way to go about it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Weird. I thought everyone was happy converting their own game systems and ideas everything using 5e. Does that make D&D a generic system, or has the premise of a generic system become moot at this point?

I've added enough additional material and subsystems to my version of the 5e ruleset that it essentially operates as a universal system for me.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure, maybe the "true" universal system idea has just died out then.

It still exists. Heroes and Hardships is a relatively recent example that came through Kickstarter a couple years ago. I do think true generic systems are less popular than they once were (in part because they do require some heavy lifting to properly apply, so they're only going to be really attractive to people who are doing something enough off the beaten path that they can't make an extent system do the work for them and also don't want to do too extensive a set of freeform kitbashing).

So, going back to the OP now that ive had my thoughts jogged, id say I need at least two settings for comparison. Does the foundation work on its own? Then, does it work as Star Wars? If yes, then can I make it also work for Star Trek? The perception of usefulness and ease of implementation is gonna be the determinant of a good generic/universal system for me.

Probably a pretty good paring, though I think I'd want something with a wider swing in genre as one of them.

 

[soviet]

You can, but IMO such a resolution system won't model any of those very accurately. I much prefer bespoke systems to model things that are actually different. Otherwise, to me you're placing the mechanics over the setting, and I don't want that.

No game models anything accurately, but in any event I don't care about modelling anything accurately. What you're talking about is a playstyle issue (focus on verisimilitude) rather than a genre issue.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Savage Worlds is still an ongoing game system with lots of support. Mythras is still active, I believe, and I assume we would put true toolkits like Cortex Prime in the same category.

I know there's some people who consider it so, but I don't think Mythras really approaches a generic system. It far too strongly sticks to certain kinds of realistic and specific expressions, if anything more severely than GURPS does. It also is seriously lacking in a lot of tools as you get outside fantasy.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No game models anything accurately, but in any event I don't care about modelling anything accurately. What you're talking about is a playstyle issue (focus on verisimilitude) rather than a genre issue.

Exactly. Playstyle is more important to me than genre emulation (except for supers games, where they're about equal).

 

[Jacob Lewis]

I think past attempts where for universal. No need for modules or adjustment, this system is built to do everything. The modern approach seems to be more of a base foundation mechanic like Gensys, YZE, PbtA, etc.. that adds flavor on top as a finishing touch.

Right. It's a concept whose time may have passed. With so many different systems out there being published and accessible, there's no need for a single universal system. At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter how good or inventive the system is, but how many people are playing it. Because you can't have a game like this until you find (of convince) other people to play it with.

Well, there are a couple of matters at hand here.

1. How "generic" 5e is as a system is very, very much in the eye of the beholder. As someone noted upthread, you can have serious questions how generic it is even in heroic fantasy, and the farther you get from that the more debateable it gets.

2. Even the people trying to use 5e as the all-purpose power-tool usually rework some elements of it for the matter at hand. There's a difference between a generic system (that can be at least moderately widely used as-is in a satisfactory way) and a basic mechanical framework (often called a "house system") that is used to build custom games off it. I believe some people mentioned the 2D20 system farther up and it clearly lands in this, rather than being a generic system per se (or even intended as one).

My point was that maybe you don't need a "generic" system to create another version of the game you want. All games have their own systems that could be adapted and adjusted to tastes. Some are more flexible than others. Some require extra work.

I've added enough additional material and subsystems to my version of the 5e ruleset that it essentially operates as a universal system for me.

Right. People are doing it all the time, even before 5e or in other systems. That is the beauty of games like these. But I personally would not call that a "universal" system; maybe a highly flexible or adaptable one.

Cheers!