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

[MGibster]

Yep, and thank goodness. Imagine if SW maintained the dice-nonsense of DL Classic.

That was often a source of confusion for new players. They’d have a 3d8 Smarts but that 3 didn’t mean a thing when it came to skill level.

 

[Fenris-77]

Setting has nothing to do with it. The rules of BitD are built specifically around its intended, limited playstyle. D&D is more "generic" simply because it tries to cover more ground than BitD by a wide margin.

Pardon? The core rules are not 'built for fantasy' at all (and less so that D&D is), and the downtime rules only need adjustment and reskinning to work for pretty much anything. Most games have an implied downtime phase. There's a reason why BitD turned into FitD and has produced so many excellent other games (scifi, supers, urban fantasy, etc) - because the underlying mechanical chassis is so flexible. I think it's far easier to make a FitD game not feel like Blades than it is to get a %E game to not feel like 5E.

 

[Reynard]

Pardon? The core rules are not 'built for fantasy' at all (and less so that D&D is), and the downtime rules only need adjustment and reskinning to work for pretty much anything. Most games have an implied downtime phase. There's a reason why BitD turned into FitD and has produced so many excellent other games (scifi, supers, urban fantasy, etc) - because the underlying mechanical chassis is so flexible. I think it's far easier to make a FitD game not feel like Blades than it is to get a %E game to not feel like 5E.

I'm baffled.

But hey, if it works for you.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Like all great 90s games, it really embraced world building. Those rules were often more complex than they needed to be, but they also had a lot of charm. The math was usually wonky, too. My favorite was Earthdawn.

Since my gaming interest really hit it's stride in the 90s, I developed my love of worldbuilding pretty quickly.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, no. 5E isn't remotely generic in its design and implementation. I'm not even sure why you'd say that. The underlying mechanical chassis is more that thing, but not the game as written. For both 5E and BitD we need to strip away setting conceits before we have something even remotely 'generic'. I won't argue that the setting conceits in BitD are more focused and better realized of course, but I don't think that changes much.

When someone says, "5e", I'm thinking about the rules set, not any particular game that uses it. D&D is not a generic game, but 5e can definitely be used for a wide variety of games and genres.

 

[Parmandur]

So 5e D&D is a generic RPG rule set?

But BitD isn't?

I'm not sure what the basis is for the ostensible contrast.

No, what @TwoSix seems to me to be saying is that 5E or BitD can be engineered to other modes, same as GURPS or Savage Worlds, and being supposedly "generic" is somewhat marketing.

I am not sure thst I fully agree fully, but it is true that 5E has been successfully adapted to a large number of genres and Settings.

 

[Fenris-77]

I'm baffled.

But hey, if it works for you.

That makes two of us. Perhaps familiarity is a barrier here? I don't know how familiar you are with the Blades mechanics or the host of other games that have purposed them in various ways.

 

[Fenris-77]

No, what @TwoSix seems to me to be saying is that 5E or BitD can be engineered to other modes, same as GURPS or Savage Worlds, and being supposedly "generic" is somewhat marketing.

I am not sure thst I fully agree fully, but it is true that 5E has been successfully adapted to a large number of genres and Settings.

This seems about right. 5E has been turned to other purposes, as has Blades. Frankly, I like the Blades iterations more than the 5E ones, but part of that is that is just so much fat to trim with 5E to get down to a useful, portable system. Neither system is 'universal' as written (or even that close, really).

 

[TwoSix]

No, what @TwoSix seems to me to be saying is that 5E or BitD can be engineered to other modes, same as GURPS or Savage Worlds, and being supposedly "generic" is somewhat marketing.

I am not sure thst I fully agree fully, but it is true that 5E has been successfully adapted to a large number of genres and Settings.

It's not "exactly" about marketing, as much as it is about presentation and a design choice to allow the art and text of the game to showcase a setting flavor with some specificity.

Other points: I see a difference between "generic" and "universal". You could use a setting-stripped core 5e engine to run games across various setting and genres, likewise, you could use FitD to do much the same. So I would call them "generic". But I think there's enough specificity in their core mechanics to make them not usable for literally any sort of game, so I would hesitate to call them "universal". I don't think too many game engines are actually universal, TBH. "Very broadly generic", sure.

Also, there's a pretty big difference, to me, between peeling out a relatively functional generic system out of a specific game, as opposed to doing generic play "well". I think you can make a generic version of the D&D resolution engines, but I don't think that means it's a good idea!