Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7446947" data-attributes="member: 82106">Nothing is immune from me <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> nor sacred in my book. I'm not sure why you say 'take it a little further'. BRP is every bit as much a 'universal system' as GURPS (which from day one was designed as such, there was no 'settled for being', it was the concept from day 1).It was a holy grail, based on the VERY limited understanding of RPGs and conceptual frameworks available to articulate how they would work which existed in the late 1970's when BRP and GURPS were first conceived. I think, for the most part, designers have turned away from this model. Lets say that they have become more discriminating. There are certainly still generic core systems out there FUDGE, FATE, Cortex, Story Time, PbtA, etc. Eh, GURPS is pretty cross-compatible. The main inssue there is they issued some source books during 2.x, some during 3.x, and some during 4.x, but a good many never got redone for each system. d6 is another similar system, but it is a bit more in the FATE category, the list of abilities and skills is genre-dependent, so d6 Fantasy character won't translate perfectly to d6 Space, though the conversion is likely to be straightforward.The problem with the universal system concept is you have to make the decisions up front about how the major systems in the game fit together, and that means deciding a LOT of how it will work and what it is good for. A system which allows characters to be highly resistant to dying (or even virtually rules it out, like Cortex+ does) is one type of system, and it is very different, in every mechanical respect, from a system where characters are treated in a realistic "death is just one bad second away" kind of fashion. Those two systems aren't going to do the same sorts of games and you really cannot realistically make a system that covers both extremes. It would be SO generalized as to be basically nothing but some generic rules suggestions.Boot Hill and TS are sort of superficially similar, yes. They both cover genre where sudden death by means of a bullet is a substantial part of the milieu. Several other TSR games used vaguely similar percentile-based systems. They each have relatively little in common.FASE-RIP WAS used in MSRP, one edition of GW, and IIRC one other game, Conan.TSR DID produce one other game based on 2e, Buck Rogers in the XXVc. AFAIK it had very little traction as an RPG.Right, that was their dying gasp attempt to do something 'revolutionary' in RPGs. Sadly their idea of a revolution was largely early-to-mid-80's era design. Alternity though is actually NOT an AE game, though its rules set was intended to replace AE (which was universally ignored in the market and got its butt kicked by Storyteller based games, leading to its cancellation in 1994). Slavicsek and Baker were the designers on Alternity BTW. TSR had a number of good games, but the point is, AE/Alternity aside, they really were pretty much avowed practitioners of the 'system for each game' concept.</blockquote>

Verification