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

[aramis erak]

Really? You’ve never had 6 to 8 encounters in an adventuring day in 12 years of play?

That’s pretty crazy.

I think I only had one of those adventuring days since 1990... and that was using 3.x
And that only because they split the party... and it was an almost TPK. Large party (9p) and the cleric of Benekander (the ONLY cleric of Benekander - we switched to 3.0 when they threw the switch on the machine in the Wrath of the Immortals campaign) dropped his holy symbol (a ship's communicator from the SS Beagle - and a literal direct line to Benekander himself)... and went back for it... when they got jumped by mind flayers... he went back for it... Slurp. The dwarf went in to get him. Slurp. The Elf and the Orc Barbarian went in... Slurp Slurp. Then the thief and the other fighter went in - Slurp Slurp. Then two more... slurp slurp. The Halfling and the NPC wife of the dwarf then took the ship, the loot, and retired to the Thief's estates. This was after two encounters since rest... so 7 encounters.
Special case. Typical in play for me was 4 encounters before long rest in 3E, and 3-5 in 5E (varies by level).

 

[aramis erak]

I think BitD has a significantly more narrow and opinionated design than 5E. I don't think 5E is a generic game, though, just that on the continuum it is more generic than BitD.

BiTD and the other FITD games are narrow action type engines that are easily reskinned for similar activities in a variety of settings, on purpose. Focus on what makes it sing, and include only enough setting to encourage creativity — much like AW and the AWE/PBTA spectrum. And the FATE spectrum.

 

[Fenris-77]

FITD is derivative from AW... Which was pretty much intended to be a "rework these rules into other settings" by D V Baker at the outset. It wasn't quite open licensed initially, per se, but Baker is proud of the wide range of games using AWE and its close derivatives (FITD, Ironsworn) and even such far flung as Sentinel Comics. (The Preview/starter set explicitly thanks Vincent and Meg and cites AW)

That whole storygame side of the industry is deeply involved in reskinning engines. to claim they're not intended for reskins is like saying GURPS isn't intended for homebrews.

When the designer welcomes reskins and leaves room for and a license for same (even if its non-commercial only, such as Cosmic Patrol's license), it's intended for generic use.

I understand the design ecosystem of AW and Blades, yes. All I'm saying is that neither is a universal system in the way GURPS is. Possible generic use is a very different thing from intentional universal design. I vastly prefer the former to the latter btw, I'm not 'defending GURPS here. But neither PbtA nor FitD quite fit that bill, even in their generic SRD forms (although they are a lot closer than either of the original games that spawned them).

 

[Reynard]

BiTD and the other FITD games are narrow action type engines that are easily reskinned for similar activities in a variety of settings, on purpose. Focus on what makes it sing, and include only enough setting to encourage creativity — much like AW and the AWE/PBTA spectrum. And the FATE spectrum.

Right. The ability to "reskin" something doesn't make it universal or generic. it still only does what it does, but now with lasers instead of crossbows.

 

[Fenris-77]

Right. The ability to "reskin" something doesn't make it universal or generic. it still only does what it does, but now with lasers instead of crossbows.

Hmm no, not that’s not what’s going on in either case. The design range is a lot bigger than that. You can reskin stuff but that only covers a pat of how those design spaces function.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Right. The ability to "reskin" something doesn't make it universal or generic. it still only does what it does, but now with lasers instead of crossbows.

Though you do have things like the somewhat complicated history of the Hero System. Because it was a broadly designed superhero system with a representative rather than narrative approach, by the time it had hit third edition, it had 95% of what you needed for a generic system, and most of the rest had been tried out in some of the 3e era heroic scale games, so it was not exceptionally difficult to integrate them into 4e when it became the first formal version to be a unified system.

But that didn't mean it didn't show its origin; as an example that stands out when viewed by an old hand is, generally, in reality and even a lot of fiction its easier to kill someone than knock someone out, whereas in Hero, barring some careful jiggery-pokey with optional rules, its the other way around (and in some context this is a problem)

So at the same time Hero was not designed as a generic system, but in a way it also was because the genre it was originally designed for is so broad.

 

[Reynard]

Hmm no, not that’s not what’s going on in either case. The design range is a lot bigger than that. You can reskin stuff but that only covers a pat of how those design spaces function.

The point is you have to do more than reskin those systems. You have to build new rules with FitD, for example, to make a FitD supers game or whatever. That is fundamentally different than an intentionally generic system like GURPS.

 

[Fenris-77]

The point is you have to do more than reskin those systems. You have to build new rules with FitD, for example, to make a FitD supers game or whatever. That is fundamentally different than an intentionally generic system like GURPS.

Which is exactly what I said was the case.

 

[Reynard]

Which is exactly what I said was the case.

And I agreed with you. I am not sure what we are arguing about.

 

[Fenris-77]

And I agreed with you. I am not sure what we are arguing about.

We're just having a comic aside, I think...