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

[Thomas Shey]

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

Use whatever excuse you like. That was an attempt to pick a fight and I'm not going to call it anything else.

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

You choose your own risks.

Veiled threats don't look any better.

 

[soviet]

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.

Agreed.

In fact I think that a system without some kind of slant/bias/opinion/agenda would be so dull it would have no value.

 

[SableWyvern]

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.

I'm not sure what it is you think was being asked in the OP.

Here are what seems to be the pertinent parts to 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?

Many people are answering this question quite explicitly, and saying, "No, I don't," and then explaining why.

Do you demand a rule set be able to do heroic fantasy or Star trek or Cthulhu investigations?

Some people are saying, "No, I don't," and then explaining why.

Are you suggesting that the only people that should be replying to the thread are the one who's answer to these questions is "Yes"?

To my mind, everyone with an opinion is actively engaging in the topic. It's not like people are coming into a thread on the interpretation of a 5e spell and saying, "Mythras has a better spell for this, you should play that instead." People have been asked, "How do you judge the value/utility of generic systems?" and are providing answers to that question. If the OP is genuinely interested in how people view generic systems, I would think these responses are valuable.

 

[Umbran]

Veiled threats don't look any better.

It is not a veiled threat. It is, in fact, what we do in moderation. Like, we even have a specific "Junior Modding" warning point we can give out.

Really. If you (generic, not personal) tell people what to post, they frequently don't like it - enough that it frequently starts fights. It was fights over trying to control thread content that led us to adopt the (+) thread policy! Now, instead of telling folks what to do in thread, and having a fight start, and getting moderated, you can start with an understanding, and move forward.

So, when I say you don't get to tell people how they should post, that's not just, "Umbran does not like it." It is that historically, we have moderated that very behavior.

It does not serve us well to hide it, and surprise you with it later. So, when you publicly assert you can, right in front of us, we are going to inform you that you're incorrect, so you can make informed choices.

 

[Fenris-77]

Junior Woodchucks are always a handful.