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

[hawkeyefan]

Perhaps it's not so much generic systems that you don't enjoy. You just don't enjoy the direction of most generic systems that bill themselves as such? Cortex leans narrative, but isn't really. I notice you don't list Fate or any of its iterations which I think would be the most narrative leaning generic that I know of (though it's still a bit crunchy other than accelerated)

I have almost zero experience with Fate. I’ve thumbed through it a bit, but I’ve never played it. I’m not sure what it is but whenever I read it, it just loses me. I do want to try it at some point just for the experience pf actually playing it… but there are other games I am eagerly looking forward to playing, so it’s pretty far down the list.

I am not sure FitD fits the idea of a universal system much. Can you explain how you think it does?

Yeah, this is kind of what I was asking in my last post. What exactly is the distinction between a game that bills itself as a universal system and a system that gets used for many different games across several genres?

Part of it, at least seems to be a matter of intent on the part of the designer. GURPS was designed to be a generic system. Forged in the Dark was designed for Blades in the Dark. The idea of allowing others to use the system for their own games was I’d say a secondary concern for John Harper.

But is that the only distinction? I think there’s more to it, but I’m not sure what. I think perhaps a part of it is that a truly generic or universal system tries to provide all the material possibly needed, so that a GM or play group can select what they want from existing material. But I’m not sure if that’s exactly right.

I’m curious what others consider the important differences to be.

 

[Reynard]

I have almost zero experience with Fate. I’ve thumbed through it a bit, but I’ve never played it. I’m not sure what it is but whenever I read it, it just loses me. I do want to try it at some point just for the experience pf actually playing it… but there are other games I am eagerly looking forward to playing, so it’s pretty far down the list.



Yeah, this is kind of what I was asking in my last post. What exactly is the distinction between a game that bills itself as a universal system and a system that gets used for many different games across several genres?

Part of it, at least seems to be a matter of intent on the part of the designer. GURPS was designed to be a generic system. Forged in the Dark was designed for Blades in the Dark. The idea of allowing others to use the system for their own games was I’d say a secondary concern for John Harper.

But is that the only distinction? I think there’s more to it, but I’m not sure what. I think perhaps a part of it is that a truly generic or universal system tries to provide all the material possibly needed, so that a GM or play group can select what they want from existing material. But I’m not sure if that’s exactly right.

I’m curious what others consider the important differences to be.

I think the most important difference is that with an intentionally generic or universal game, people don't have to tease out the system and eliminate the bits they don't need while replacing them with the ones they do. Instead, all the bits are there and you apply them, turn dials, etc to use the system for a given IP or genre.

 

[TwoSix]

But is that the only distinction? I think there’s more to it, but I’m not sure what. I think perhaps a part of it is that a truly generic or universal system tries to provide all the material possibly needed, so that a GM or play group can select what they want from existing material. But I’m not sure if that’s exactly right.

I’m curious what others consider the important differences to be.

To my mind, I would say a "generic/universal system" requires some choice of campaign/setting frame be made by the participants before any sort of play-generated fiction can even be attempted.

You can play Blades in the Dark without having to make a choice of setting; indeed, you would have to make a strongly-made decision to not play BitD in Duskvol. Whereas you simply can't play FATE Core by itself; you have to make a decision as to what kind of story you're trying to run before you can begin to play.

 

[bsss]

I think the most important difference is that with an intentionally generic or universal game, people don't have to tease out the system and eliminate the bits they don't need while replacing them with the ones they do. Instead, all the bits are there and you apply them, turn dials, etc to use the system for a given IP or genre.

Right, the less the system has to do with a particular genre or style, the more universal it is, I'd say. Whether or not there are published genre/style things is an interesting note about the product, certainly, but doesn't affect the system definition.

A good case study on this is Numenera and the Cypher System. The former introduced a system that became the latter; Numenera begat The Strange with the same core mechanics, and the two of them begat Cypher System, and from there there have been a multitude of IPed and IP-less books built upon the (now twice revised) Cypher System. Cypher System itself comes with light notes on how to run a particular genre (and if you want more specifics, you go to a different book) with its rules, but that core is the same regardless of genre, and regardless of whether or not you paid for a product to add stuff or just use the core, in which case you are freely making decisions about your game on top of the framework.

In other words, I wouldn't treat the implemented scope of a CS or GURPS as a necessary element of a universal system --- the system doesn't need to cover the span of the universe, but it must intend to remain more or less the same in any particular implementation within it, known or otherwise.

I also like TwoSix's distinction above.

 

[aramis erak]

To my mind, I would say a "generic/universal system" requires some choice of campaign/setting frame be made by the participants before any sort of play-generated fiction can even be attempted.

You can play Blades in the Dark without having to make a choice of setting; indeed, you would have to make a strongly-made decision to not play BitD in Duskvol. Whereas you simply can't play FATE Core by itself; you have to make a decision as to what kind of story you're trying to run before you can begin to play.

you've just offloaded that choice to the devs; the same core mechanic is used in half a dozen games. There are several dozen preconfigured FATE games where you don't have to make the choice, but they're the same mechanics as FATE Core.

It's the question of Adapted Core vs Core+Splats... and homebrew settings function as splats more oft than not.

 

[TwoSix]

you've just offloaded that choice to the devs; the same core mechanic is used in half a dozen games. There are several dozen preconfigured FATE games where you don't have to make the choice, but they're the same mechanics as FATE Core.

It's the question of Adapted Core vs Core+Splats... and homebrew settings function as splats more oft than not.

And I'm fine leaving that choice up to the devs. Being a generic system isn't an inherent property of a rule system; it's a choice made in the presentation.

Any resolution system could be made generic if you're willing to do the work peeling off all the embedded setting conceits.

 

[SableWyvern]

Any resolution system could be made generic if you're willing to do the work peeling off all the embedded setting conceits.

You've pretty much described my approach, although perhaps coming at it from the opposite direction.

I treat every system as a toolkit, because I'm always willing to do that work. But I don't really treat anything as generic, because I always have a specific use-case in mind and I've picked the system because I believe it can do that specific thing I need (once my work adapting it is done).

 

[pemerton]

Any resolution system could be made generic if you're willing to do the work peeling off all the embedded setting conceits.

Hmm.

I'm not sure the D&D combat resolution system can easily be made generic. The whole stop-motion, one attack per N seconds to deplete X hit points, approach is clearly best for melee and hand-to-hand duels. It's wonkier for archery - what actually happens when an arrow "hits" a character and knocks of some hit points? And wonkier still for gunfire.

In 1977, for instance, Traveller opted for simultaneous resolution and no escalating hit points.

 

[SableWyvern]

Hmm.

I'm not sure the D&D combat resolution system can easily be made generic. The whole stop-motion, one attack per N seconds to deplete X hit points, approach is clearly best for melee and hand-to-hand duels. It's wonkier for archery - what actually happens when an arrow "hits" a character and knocks of some hit points? And wonkier still for gunfire.

In 1977, for instance, Traveller opted for simultaneous resolution and no escalating hit points.

You seem to be conflating "generic" with "covers all situations in a fashion to meets my preferences".

D&D can absolutely do gunfire, as proven by the many, many D&D based rulesets that account for gunfire. Whether it does so in a fashion that works for you is a separate question entirely.

Does the D&D combat system tend to result in certain expectations when it comes to style, grit, realism, tactical options etc? Of course; and this is something that all systems do, whether they're marketed as generic or not.

 

[jdrakeh]

For sci-fi, it's the Starfleet Battles Universe and for fantasy, it's Shadow World.