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

[Dannyalcatraz]

For me, the main questions I ask:

1) how easy is it for me to design interesting, fun PCs of different kinds?

2) how does it compare to HERO?

3) how does it compare to GURPS?

Context: HERO is my favorite RPG system; GURPS is the toolbox system I’ve found to be popular with the biggest number of groups I’ve been part of. So I have a lot of hands-on experiences with each, meaning I can get pretty creative with PC design.

Of the systems I’ve added to my arsenal this century:

1) Mutants & Masterminds has come closest to being as flexible & useful to me as HERO.

2) I’ve perceived Cypher as being damn flexible and relatively rules light, so it has a lot of potential

3) I feel quite strongly that D&D 4Ed shouldn’t have supplanted 3.5Ed. Instead it should have been designed from Day 1 as a classless toolbox system. It has great bones for that, IMHO, and it was somewhat hobbled by adapting its mechanisms to fit (or slaughter) D&D sacred cows.

 

[Blue]

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.

Of course. At no point did I say they had to be bespoke, I just said the rules have to actively support it. Just to assume bespoke systems in a universal RPG is quite a stretch, I'm not sure why you'd think I was requiring that to cover a situation.

For example, I had several that mentioned chases. Want that to be part of a wider opposed skill challenge mechanic? Go for it, that's a great mechanical framework for something wanting to be universal. Want to use that same mechanic for combat, including vehicle combat? Go for it. Want to use it for heists? Go for it, though heists also need mechanics to avoid the "three hours of planning, goes off the rails 15 minutes in" syndrome that games like Shadowrun show us is prevalent and things like Blades in the Dark address.

Again, you need rules that actively support the setting and (sub)genre you are trying for, not just allow them. How it does that, via broad resolution systems, rules modules to add, knobs to adjust, go for it. Mind you, it is still looking for a broad resolution system that can support the feel of high powered supers, grimdark fantasy, and teen drama without giving results outside what furthers the theme, but since it doesn't exist in a vacuum the supporting bits like character creation/advancement can do a lot of that tuning if you have a flexible mechanic.

 

[Umbran]

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

Discussion opposite the original question still is talking about the same topic, just in the other direction. You can still learn about people's ideas on the topic from that.

As opposed to, say, a complete side conversation about thread etiquette, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the OP...

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.

With respect, you are now projecting onto people a specific motivation that may not exist.

If you start with the assumption that folks who disagree with you are going to actively try to shut you up, well, you are probably going to steer your own discussion into conflict.

More likely, the effect is not intentional. Folks are going to talk about what they want to talk about, and that may mean the bulk of responses aren't what you intended.

... and would like to encourage others to think about whether they want to.

Um, dude, you're not their mom. You don't get to tell them what they should, or shoudn't, post about.

 

[soviet]

One thing that universal games allow you to do is create your own settings. My games of Other Worlds have included cyberpunk, Star Wars, WW2 zombie apocalypse, and epic fantasy (the four players created the four races of the world and played the chosen champions of those races, put together in a Babylon 5/War of the Ring quest to save the world from the unseelie).

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Need? No. But I don't have any sign that they aren't routinely easier to adjust unless you happen to have another game system that is pretty close to what you need in the first place. And that's far from a given.

 

[aramis erak]

A lot of companies still have a house engine they adapt for everything. Just a lot of them now use someone else's engine as their house engine. Gaming Ballistic uses mostly GURPS, Magnetic uses WEG's openD6, dozens used D&D5, half a dozen produce Canis Minor content for Pugmire/monarchies/Squeaks...

• Modiphius has 2d20, all adapted core mode
• Free League uses 2 flavors of YZE, both in adapted cores - YZE D6 (most of them) and YZE Step DIe (T2K 4e and
• Mongoose uses Traveller now, but before that they used their variant of RQ... and before that their variant of D20 SRD 3.0... but those were a mix of adapted cores and setting books.)
• Dream Pod 9 has Silhouette Core and migrated from adapted cores to unified mechanics book with setting books in the late 90's. They appear to have gone fallow.
• WotC did D20, then SWSE/4E, then 5E, with adapted cores in d20 and 4e. They left 5E variants to other companies. (To be honest, I think hasbro did a themselves a disservice by farming out the MLP, GIJoe, and Transformers to Renegade
• Renegade has their Essence 20 - which is even less flexible than 5E... but they used it for their second MLP, plus their other HasBro licenses (Transformers and GI Joe)...
• Palladium is notorious for their largely unchanged from 1984 mechanics. Used in almost everything Palladium did/does.
• Onyx Path does 2 house systems: WoD/Storyteller/Storypath and Canis Major (Pugmire, Monarchies of Mau, Squeaks in the Deep); neither invented there, as CM/Pugmire is a D&D 5.0 variant. They've really hacked about with WoD... but it's still WoD at the core. Plus they do stuff for D&D...
• SJG has GURPS... but also TFT and Toon
• RTG has Interlock - interlock powers multiple games - Mekton, Cyberbunk (2013, 2020, v3, 2077), and a close variant for TFOS. Plus several others (IIRC, Witcher is Interlock - not labeled as such, but a read through the skills and game mechanics, yes, it's an interlock variant.
  • The variant called Fuzion blends elements of Interlock and Hero.
  • Ianus Games used TFOS for Star Riders...
• the now fallow/comatose Eden Studios had Unisystem, in two flavors, each with multiple adapted cores.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Discussion opposite the original question still is talking about the same topic, just in the other direction. You can still learn about people's ideas on the topic from that.

As opposed to, say, a complete side conversation about thread etiquette, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the OP...

The snideness is not appreciated, and tells me any further conversation with you on this is undesirable.

Um, dude, you're not their mom. You don't get to tell them what they should, or shoudn't, post about.

I absolutely do. Just like they absolutely get to ignore me if they wish.

 

[Thomas Shey]

@aramis erak I think Storypath has evolved sufficiently far from Storyteller you have to consider it an additional (and now Onyx Path's main) system these days; its still a die pool system based on attribute + skill, but the way the output is handled is pretty radically different from how Storyteller did.

 

[Umbran]

The snideness is not appreciated, and tells me any further conversation with you on this is undesirable.

I mean, if you don't want to look in the mirror, that's your choice.

I absolutely do. Just like they absolutely get to ignore me if they wish.

I mean, historically, folks have gotten moderated and threadbanned for that behavior, so...

You choose your own risks.

 

[chuckdee]

I think that a lot of responses that add up to "generic systems really aren't" maybe kind of denying premise for the thread. It essentially declares the question meaningless out of the gate.

Personally, I think that "generic systems really aren't" is pretty reductionist. There is no true "generic" anything just as there are no true "generalizations"- there's always designer bias that sneaks in (or is intentional) that makes it better for some things than others, and slant in a certain way. This doesn't make them non-generic any more than it makes it so that generalizations aren't based in some observable behavior. The usefulness is just couched in terms of the bias of the provenance for the idea/system.