From Bespoke to Universal: Let's Talk About TTRPG Systems and Themes

[Staffan]

From my perspective, games usually have both a tone and a milieu. A universal game or a house system will usually maintain its tone even when applied to different milieus. For example, Savage Worlds is a highly pulpy game. You can use it for pulp western, pulp horror, pulp fantasy, or pulp sci-fi, but it will always be pulp. Similarly, GURPS is an attempt at making a game that simulates reality – sometimes reality with some exceptions, but it tries to be realistic. Any game run in GURPS will be "realistic" – sure, there are modifications you can make to the rules to reduce realism, but even with those in place, that's still the baseline.

So, there's a limit to the kind of things you can reasonably do, even with a universal/house system. And trying to go outside it will usually feel odd – you can make superhero characters in GURPS, but the game won't feel like a comic book as long as you have one-second turns and detailed hit locations.

 

[John Dallman]

PbtA is more like a genus of games, if that makes sense.

It does, and the term also gets misused for games in a generally similar style, but different mechanics. This confused me at first with BitD, although not nearly as much as the Roll20 character sheet.

 

[Joshua Randall]

I have come around to the 'system matters' way of thinking.

To such an extent that I believe most (but not all) 'file the serial numbers off' versions of a system like PbtA, FitD, etc. fail as games. Because they tried to shortcut the 'system matters' part of the game design.

(PbtA = Powered by the Apocalypse, the system of Apocalypse World),
(FitD = Forged in the Dark, the system of Blades in the Dark)

For example -- among the dozens if not hundreds of AW knockoffs, only a very few have stood the test of time. Most of those were ones that adjusted the underlying game engine to suit their play... or just, somehow, did an amazingly good job of palette-swapping AW.

Not that said, I still play and enjoy D&D which has been bastardized into a universal system; but in my opinion, the only genre that D&D is really good at is D&D (whether it's orcs & swords or bug-eyed Martians & laser-guns is set dressing).

 

[Joshua Randall]

Also of note: PbtA does not actually have a standalone core book nor SRD.

PbtA is, arguably, technically, a license to copy AW's framework and adjust it. PbtA is not really a game engine (despite what I posted above!).

The game engine of Joshua's hypothetical PbtA game would be 'AW with whatever modifications I made (including the only modifications being just find/replace the terms with other terms'). I would then publish it under PbtA's very lenient license.

 

[Joshua Randall]

Basic Roleplaying is another big universal system that still exists and is supported.

Gumshoe is arguably a universal system now. (Although see other threads for where I think it doesn't work.)

 

[Umbran]

PbtA versus something like Cortex Prime is interesting because as far as I know, there is no Cortex Prime like book for PbtA, no toolkit manual to help you build the game you want.

So, I am not sure why the book is what makes the difference. If someone wrote, "How to Write PbtA Playbooks" would that change what PbtA fundamentally is?

I think that makes Cortex more like Hero (even though gameplay wise they might be far apart). PbtA is more like a genus of games, if that makes sense.

Unfortunately, I have not played or read Hero, so that reference doesn't mean anything to me.

 

[Joshua Randall]

FWIW, Vincent & Meguey Baker specifically define PbtA as "policy concerning others' use of our intellectual property and creative work".

Again, "Powered by the Apocalypse" isn't the name of a kind of game, set of game elements, or even the core design thrust of a coherent movement. (Ha! This last, the least so.) Its use in a game's trade dress signifies ONLY that the game was inspired by Apocalypse World in a way that the designer considers significant, and that it follows our policy wrt others' use of our creative work.

Powered by the Apocalypse

PbtA is not a set of rules -- unlike, say, Fate Core or Forged in the Dark.

For that reason, PbtA does not (cannot) have a 'raw rules' text nor SRD.

Someone could, hypothetically, take the AW rules, clean them up a bit, and publish just the rules and call it, I dunno, Bare Naked AW and that would AW rules, Powered by the Apocalypse. (As that same page puts it, "Apocalypse World itself is Powered by the Apocalypse.")

===

Anyway... AW as a 'generic rules engine' would, to me, be like D&D as a generic rules engine in that AW-engine would only be good at creating games of AW (with whatever set-dressing you want).

The concept of core moves, roll 2d6+stat, degrees of success, and playbooks with playbook-specific moves... could be genericized, I guess... but that kinda flies in the face of the 'system matters' that led to AW to begin with! But FWIW, there is such a thing as Simple World which was an interesting early hack of AW where you build the moves/game as you go, in an effort to get your modified rules to the table early for playtesting.

https://buriedwithoutceremony.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/simple-world.pdf

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

These days I have little interest in universal systems. With a few exceptions (Mork Borg's system for example, which while it does different genres, unifies them with a very specific aesthetic), I'd much rather a system designed to do one genre or milieu well than one that does multiple with less specificity.

 

[Reynard]

So, I am not sure why the book is what makes the difference. If someone wrote, "How to Write PbtA Playbooks" would that change what PbtA fundamentally is?

No, but it would change the nature of engagement with the thing. PbtA is a family of games with a similar design sensibility (how similar depends on the game) while Cortex is a system one uses to create one's game. If PbtA had a toolkit manual, it would change how individuals approach PbtA gaming, I think. People inined to that style would start there rather than, say, trying to hack Dungeon World.

 

[Umbran]

FWIW, Vincent & Meguey Baker specifically define PbtA as "policy concerning others' use of our intellectual property and creative work".

And, if you are interested in using the term as a mark of trade, that matters.

But, with all respect to the Bakers, there's also a practical matter of what the term has come to mean to the community. And that does include design elements.

The concept of core moves, roll 2d6+stat, degrees of success, and playbooks with playbook-specific moves... could be genericized, I guess... but that kinda flies in the face of the 'system matters' that led to AW to begin with!

I don't think it flies in the face of anything. "System matters" doesn't mean, "all games should be completely bespoke and written from scratch". System matters, at least to me, means, "use the right tool for the job you want done." System matters means I should be thoughtful about the underlying system I use, not that I can't use someone else's underlying system.

If a set of core moves, roll 2d6+stat, degrees of success, and playbooks with playbook specific moves is the right tool for my job, then I should darned well use it!