Universal RPG's not Universal?

[Ranger REG]

System does matter. Not as much, and not in the same way that Forgites think, but it does matter.

True, but sometimes I think gamers put too much emphasis on the system and not their own contribution to the game.

 

[Thomas5251212]

True, but sometimes I think gamers put too much emphasis on the system and not their own contribution to the game.

I see plenty of discussions of social factors in game problems; but its hard to generically address those without looking at the gestalt of an individual group. As such, the part that's easy to work with is the part that gets most discussion, and that's system issues.

 

[scourger]

I actually find the core d20 (3.0) system very portable to other genres. I had a lot of fun using it with Omega World (post-apocalyptic), Judge Dredd (science fiction), Spellslinger (magical western) and even a one-shot of Spycraft (espionage). Sure, it does D&D (fantasy) best, but it's pretty portable if the game is written for it. Cutting out the magic makes it a lot easier to run, too. Plus, it's familiar.

I think Savage Worlds can do just about any game. So far, I've only run Tour of Darkness (military horror), but I would love to try different genres. I just can't get past the d20 familiarity with my group.

 

[Eric Tolle]

I actually find the core d20 (3.0) system very portable to other genres. I had a lot of fun using it with Omega World (post-apocalyptic), Judge Dredd (science fiction), Spellslinger (magical western) and even a one-shot of Spycraft (espionage). Sure, it does D&D (fantasy) best, but it's pretty portable if the game is written for it. Cutting out the magic makes it a lot easier to run, too. Plus, it's familiar.

At the core of D20, you have the resolution system, 6 stats, skills, and feats- and the last two are pretty variable. So given how modular it is, I'm not at all surprised its flexible. Of course I knew people who would kitbash AD&D (and before that D&D) into all kinds of weirdness, such as SF and superheroes; next to that D20 is a cinch to alter.

You should be careful trying to kitbash basic D&D though- something like Runequest can result if you're not careful.

 

[buzz]

At the core of D20, you have the resolution system, 6 stats, skills, and feats- and the last two are pretty variable. So given how modular it is, I'm not at all surprised its flexible.

The best way I've heard it put is that d20 forms a pretty solid "chassis" for building an RPG upon. I.e., by tailoring things like feats and classes, it can be adapted to fit various settings.

That said, I stand by my earlier comment. These days, I do not look for one RPG to do everything, because, at least from my perspective, no one RPG can. (Though I think FATE comes pretty close. )

 

[Counterspin]

System has a huge effect on a campaign. I think the most obvious example of this is the spontaneous death rate, i.e. the odds a character will be killed without it being the players fault. D&D 3.5 starts out at a low spontaneous death rate(SDR), then gets way higher as save or die spells/abilities become prevalent. I see character death rate as a very significant impact of the system.
D&D places very strict restrictions on useful knowledge the players can have via the knowledge system, in UA characters are presumed to have large amounts of penumbra knowledge about things they're good at. Knowledge is a side effect of skill, if you will.
And then of course there's initial competence level for a starting campaign and a couple other things.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

System has a huge effect on a campaign. I think the most obvious example of this is the spontaneous death rate, i.e. the odds a character will be killed without it being the players fault.

IMHO, that has much more to do with the GM than system.

 

[buzz]

IMHO, that has much more to do with the GM than system.

If the mechanics skew lethality one way or the other, it's going to have an effect. Be it that players are eager to throw their PCs into a fight, are averse to doing so, or sigh because they know that it'll take the next two hours to play it out.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The only system I've ever seen in which the GMs doesn't have full control over a game's lethality would be Original Traveller, in which a PC could die during character generation (which, BTW, happened to my first OT PC) due to a die roll the player chooses to make.

In all other systems, even if their combat mechanics skew towards hyper-lethality, the GM can still emphasize role-play over combat. His NPCs might tend towards being gun-shy, favoring threat and innuendo over actual combat...after all, they "know" just as well as the PCs how dangerous the "world" is.

Conversely, a "Killer GM" can turn "Teletubbies: the RPG" into a bloodbath if he so wants.

 

[Thomas5251212]

The only system I've ever seen in which the GMs doesn't have full control over a game's lethality would be Original Traveller, in which a PC could die during character generation (which, BTW, happened to my first OT PC) due to a die roll the player chooses to make.

In all other systems, even if their combat mechanics skew towards hyper-lethality, the GM can still emphasize role-play over combat. His NPCs might tend towards being gun-shy, favoring threat and innuendo over actual combat...after all, they "know" just as well as the PCs how dangerous the "world" is.

Conversely, a "Killer GM" can turn "Teletubbies: the RPG" into a bloodbath if he so wants.

The problem with this logic is that "full control" over lethality in some systems adds up to either avoiding combat altogether (to keep it low) or being ridiculously over the top (to make it possible). In fact, there are systems in which it is literally impossible to kill someone directly in combat assuming normal character builds. So I don't think your statement is really true unless you're assuming direct GM fiat.