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

[Fenris-77]

Honesty, GURPS is a pretty good litmus test for me. If a game feels like GURPS, chances are I’m not going to like it much.

The game that's closest to GURPS that I like is probably Savage Worlds.

 

[MGibster]

The game that's closest to GURPS that I like is probably Savage Worlds.

Savage Worlds has a somewhat different philosophy when it comes to adapting other settings to their game. GURPS is pretty hard line about translating skills, powers, and abilities into something that can be measured (in Imperial units of course). If you have a character from fiction, let's say a telepath from a science fiction setting, GURPS is pretty specific about translating that to their system based on what you know about the characters power as demonstrated in the setting. What's the range in yards? Are there any limitations? Are there situations where it works particularly well? If the telepathy only works within 10 yards then that will have an impact on how many points it's worth.

Savage Worlds is a bit more wishy washy when it comes to adapting a setting. They don't really encourage you to make the adaptation exactly like the source material. Just get the jist of it and move on.

 

[Fenris-77]

Savage Worlds has a somewhat different philosophy when it comes to adapting other settings to their game. GURPS is pretty hard line about translating skills, powers, and abilities into something that can be measured (in Imperial units of course). If you have a character from fiction, let's say a telepath from a science fiction setting, GURPS is pretty specific about translating that to their system based on what you know about the characters power as demonstrated in the setting. What's the range in yards? Are there any limitations? Are there situations where it works particularly well? If the telepathy only works within 10 yards then that will have an impact on how many points it's worth.

Savage Worlds is a bit more wishy washy when it comes to adapting a setting. They don't really encourage you to make the adaptation exactly like the source material. Just get the jist of it and move on.

Oh yeah, I know they are different in lots of ways, but SW has a lot more in common with GURPS than any other game I currently play.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Savage Worlds has a somewhat different philosophy when it comes to adapting other settings to their game. GURPS is pretty hard line about translating skills, powers, and abilities into something that can be measured (in Imperial units of course). If you have a character from fiction, let's say a telepath from a science fiction setting, GURPS is pretty specific about translating that to their system based on what you know about the characters power as demonstrated in the setting. What's the range in yards? Are there any limitations? Are there situations where it works particularly well? If the telepathy only works within 10 yards then that will have an impact on how many points it's worth.

All those things are exactly why I like GURPS, and any other game that focuses on modeling something in the imaginary world as accurately as is practical. Wishy-washy is just what I don't want my game mechanics to be, ideally.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Oh yeah, I know they are different in lots of ways, but SW has a lot more in common with GURPS than any other game I currently play.

In thinking about it, I’m a bit odd in that I’m not big on generic systems… I dislike GURPS, I’ve never gotten into Savage Worlds, and the only Cortex game I’ve played has been Marvel Heroic.

But I do like games that use the same system for different genres. I’ve enjoyed Blades in the Dark, Scum & Villainy, Band of Blades, Galaxies in Peril, The 13th Fleet, and False Kingdom which presents a pretty wide range of genres/settings but which all use the Forged in the Dark system.

The same goes for the Resistance System that powers Spire and Heart. These games are admittedly pretty similar… they even take place in the same setting world… but they focus on different things. And I’ve enjoyed a number of Powered by the Apocalypse games of all sorts.

I wonder how much distinction people see between the two classifications.

 

[SableWyvern]

While I agree there's a difference between insulting people and insulting games, I think to assume the separation is complete there misunderstands human nature.

Rolemaster is my first love and I'm running a campaign of it right now. If I took widespread opinions and feelings on the game as some kind of personal attack, I'd be gibbering mess.

I also don't mind GURPS -- I found it did exactly what I needed, and did it well, when I used it to run X-Com. Despite this, I'm quite OK with @Fenris-77 feeling it's a festering pile of monkey poo, and anyone else in the thread who doesn't like it. Those opinions have no impact on how successful or fun my game was, or the fond memories held by all who participated

I do feel that people frequently like to believe their personal reasons for not liking something are based on objective failings, rather than matters or taste and preference, but that's a separate issue again (and I don't think I've seen anyone making that type of claim in this thread).

I do agree that many people don't handle rejection of the things they like well, but I think that's something such people need to learn to deal with, not a reason for everyone else to walk on egg-shells. I do think explicitly negative conversations (Let's discuss what RPGs everyone hates the most!) are generally a bad idea, simply because they're predicated on focusing on negativity, but genuinely held criticisms and honest assessments of personal preference should not need to be self-censored when part of a wider conversation.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Rolemaster is my first love and I'm running a campaign of it right now. If I took widespread opinions and feelings on the game as some kind of personal attack, I'd be gibbering mess.

The fact my statement does not apply to you does not mean it doesn't apply to a lot of people. Frankly, I'm a little startled people who've participated in extensive RPG discussion are not already aware of that (or if they are, they've chosen to ignore it).

I do agree that many people don't handle rejection of the things they like well, but I think that's something such people need to learn to deal with, not a reason for everyone else to walk on egg-shells. I do think explicitly negative conversations (Let's discuss what RPGs everyone hates the most!) are generally a bad idea, simply because they're predicated on focusing on negativity, but genuinely held criticisms and honest assessments of personal preference should not need to be self-censored when part of a wider conversation.

The question is, are you more interested in trying to convince others to lose the connection they make with criticism of games (or other things) they value, or are you interested in not cooking up the discussion (especially be being extremely blunt in the way you criticism)? That's up to you, but if someone acts surprised that someone takes this sort of thing personally, they've apparently not been paying attention.

 

[hawkeyefan]

While I can understand the impulse to not like criticism of things one enjoys… and I know perfectly well that I do this myself from time to time… I can only muster so much sympathy for people who can’t either engage in some way or ignore it and move on.

Someone said game X is garbage. It’s annoying and maybe a poorly formulated opinion. I get it. Either explain why it’s poorly formulated, or ignore it.

Honestly, when someone says something that’s like hyperbolic in that way… “oh this game’s a travesty” or “man that game is the worst thing that’s happened to humanity”, it’s pretty much a cue that they’re not looking for discussion. Their mind’s made up. It’s easy to not engage with that stuff.

 

[pemerton]

While I can understand the impulse to not like criticism of things one enjoys… and I know perfectly well that I do this myself from time to time… I can only muster so much sympathy for people who can’t either engage in some way or ignore it and move on.

Luckily no one has ever advanced mocking criticism of the two RPGs I've spent more consecutive years playing than any others - Rolemaster, and 4e D&D. So my gaming ego is unaffronted.

<reviews nearly every post ever about RM and 4e>

Wait, I think I need to edit this post . . .

 

[Thomas Shey]

Again, I don't think saying "This sort of thing doesn't bother me so there's no need to care about it bothering anyone else" is not perhaps the flex it appears.