Your thoughts on Generic versus Bespoke systems.

[hawkeyefan]

I tend to want a game with a specific purpose in mind. I think that games that are trying to deliver a specific theme or experience tend to be designed more tightly. The rules are crafted specifically to deliver that experience rather than with the intention of being broadly applicable. I think game design benefits from that focus.

Having said that, I can think of plenty of examples of a game system that was designed to deliver a specific experience that was taken and changed to deliver a different experience, so I wouldn't say I'm against "generic" games, or systems that can be used in different ways. Like, GURPS was never my thing, as little experience as I have with it, but people rave about Cortex. I'm just unsure why I'd want to take a game like that, and then hack it into what I want when I can likely find a game that will do what I want that's already complete.

 

[Jer]

I'm just unsure why I'd want to take a game like that, and then hack it into what I want when I can likely find a game that will do what I want that's already complete.

There are two parts. The first is that what if you don't have to hack it yourself? Take Cortex as an example - there are multiple games published where the publisher uses the Cortex engine to create a game for you. If you want to run a heist game and you're choosing between Blades in the Dark or Leverage both will give you heist games, so why pick one over the other? If you're already playing a Cortex game it's easier to pick up Leverage than to learn an entirely new system (though my argument founders on the fact that you can't buy Leverage anymore, but I own it so I'll use it as an example).

The second is finding players. I know that I can find players for any D&D d20 based game I want to run - I have a table of them who will play anything from D&D to Starfinder if I want to run it. Most of those players will do one shots in any game I want, but over the years some have expressed disinterest in Fate and PbtA games that we've tried and likely would not want to play if we play those games. Now if I'm thinking about running an urban monster hunting game, do I go with Monster of the Week (PbtA) or the Dresden Files (Fate) or do I go with Everyday Heroes or d20 Modern or even just reskin 5e a bit for my needs? If I want them all to join us, it'll probably be one of the latter (or more likely some system like Torg which they're also happy to play) because I know I'll have more buy-in.

 

[pointofyou]

I'm just unsure why I'd want to take a game like that, and then hack it into what I want when I can likely find a game that will do what I want that's already complete.

I think most of the advantage is that the game is meant to be adapted to suit your intentions. The difference between adapting D&D 5e to play a game set in a real-world-adjacent setting with some oddities and adapting Cypher to that same game is vast. Most of the rest of the advantage seems to be centered around how specific the idea is for the game you want to run. If what you want to do isn't really covered by any game you can find then you'll probably want to start with a game with fewer presumptions baked in.

EDIT: You got double-teamed there. Sorry.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

When I was younger, I was all-in on generic systems. I played tons of Palladium and Storyteller System games. These days, I much prefer bespoke systems. While it's nice not having to learn a new RPG system every time, I feel like it's a "jack-of-all-trades, master of none" situation when you have a system that tries to cover superheroes, horror, fantasy, espionage, and a bunch of other different genres at once.

 

[Blue]

I'm not sure Blades in the Dark is the best example of a "bespoke" system, given how many Forged in the Dark games have been spun off it.

Blades in the Dark is a very tightly focused game. The playbooks are tightly focused on the setting, which in turn is unique and will present unusual opportunities for play. The play loop is structured to provide a specific type of play.

The fact that this infrastructure can be taken and reused, but only with the rewriting of all of the setting, playbooks, genre, and feel, doesn't mean that it isn't laser focused.

That's like saying Masks: A New Generation isn't bespoke to the teen superteam / growing up with powers and finding out who you are, just because there are other PbtA systems.

 

[billd91]

Anyway, what do you prefer? Does that change based on the genre or style of game you are looking for? If you prefer more generic systems broadly, do you want bespoke subsystems on top (a hesit mechanics in a generic game, for example)? What are your favorite games of either type, or anywhere on the continuum?

What do I prefer? I guess it depends on my mood and what I'm feeling the jones to play. There may be times I want a more focused experience and so would prefer a bespoke game. But much of the time my desires are more general and not too tightly focused. In those situations, a more generic game will help me and probably help fit in with other players whose interests overlap but aren't completely congruent. In those situations, the fuzziness and flexibility of a more generic game can get us playing productively together.

 

[Faolyn]

Anyway, what do you prefer? Does that change based on the genre or style of game you are looking for? If you prefer more generic systems broadly, do you want bespoke subsystems on top (a hesit mechanics in a generic game, for example)? What are your favorite games of either type, or anywhere on the continuum?

For me, it's very much on how much I like the setting versus how much I like the game's focus. Like, Blades in the Dark--I find the world fascinating and want to do anything but commit heists in it, because that seems so limiting when I really want to explore the world. It's one of the more interesting peri-apocalypse worlds I've seen, but I don't want to play in it or run it.

On the other hand, I've been reading two other PbtA-based games: Root and Monster of the Week, and while they both have an equally narrow focus, but both of them have a combination of world, genre, and focus that I want to actually play or run them. And hopefully will, soon.

I don’t really think of D&D as a generic system because it only addresses part of the “high fantasy” milieu. If you want to do non-party play, it doesn’t do much to support you when PCs come into conflict. In fact, PvP is usually something no one wants in their D&D game. Actually, I struggle to think of any “generic” systems that aren’t also “universal” systems. Personally, I don’t like those because I don’t like having to put my game together (I say fully aware of the irony that I’m willing to design my own system but not willing to “put together” a universal RPG).

It's generic in the sense that there's no setting attached to it, and there's a very broad interpretation of it's genre--after all, this is a game that supports the Realms, Greyhawk, Planescape, Spelljammer, Ravenloft, Dark Sun, Eberron, Birthright, and so on, plus a countless number of homebrew worlds. And it can support numerous play styles, from murderhobo-ing your way through a dungeon to political intrigue to solving mysteries to exploration to any number of other things.

Whereas something like Blades In The Dark is built around a single world, and, without a lot of homebrew (for new playbooks), just single interpretation of that world--playing as criminals doing crime.

So D&D isn't completely generic, since it's still pretty much written for high-powered fantasy and not other genres, but it's far more generic than many other systems (and far less than others). Whether you like that or not depends, as you say, on how much you like putting together your own game.

 

[hawkeyefan]

There are two parts. The first is that what if you don't have to hack it yourself? Take Cortex as an example - there are multiple games published where the publisher uses the Cortex engine to create a game for you. If you want to run a heist game and you're choosing between Blades in the Dark or Leverage both will give you heist games, so why pick one over the other? If you're already playing a Cortex game it's easier to pick up Leverage than to learn an entirely new system (though my argument founders on the fact that you can't buy Leverage anymore, but I own it so I'll use it as an example).

I was thinking more about the Cortex Prime system versus a specific game that uses it.

The second is finding players. I know that I can find players for any D&D d20 based game I want to run - I have a table of them who will play anything from D&D to Starfinder if I want to run it. Most of those players will do one shots in any game I want, but over the years some have expressed disinterest in Fate and PbtA games that we've tried and likely would not want to play if we play those games. Now if I'm thinking about running an urban monster hunting game, do I go with Monster of the Week (PbtA) or the Dresden Files (Fate) or do I go with Everyday Heroes or d20 Modern or even just reskin 5e a bit for my needs? If I want them all to join us, it'll probably be one of the latter (or more likely some system like Torg which they're also happy to play) because I know I'll have more buy-in.

This is true! I have pretty stable play groups who are all open to trying new games. I should have been more clear that I meant this about me and my circumstances rather than as some universal take.

I think most of the advantage is that the game is meant to be adapted to suit your intentions. The difference between adapting D&D 5e to play a game set in a real-world-adjacent setting with some oddities and adapting Cypher to that same game is vast. Most of the rest of the advantage seems to be centered around how specific the idea is for the game you want to run. If what you want to do isn't really covered by any game you can find then you'll probably want to start with a game with fewer presumptions baked in.

EDIT: You got double-teamed there. Sorry.

No worries! I don’t think I was entirely clear about what I was saying, but either way, you guys have made valid points.

 

[kenada]

It's generic in the sense that there's no setting attached to it, and there's a very broad interpretation of it's genre--after all, this is a game that supports the Realms, Greyhawk, Planescape, Spelljammer, Ravenloft, Dark Sun, Eberron, Birthright, and so on, plus a countless number of homebrew worlds. And it can support numerous play styles, from murderhobo-ing your way through a dungeon to political intrigue to solving mysteries to exploration to any number of other things.

Whereas something like Blades In The Dark is built around a single world, and, without a lot of homebrew (for new playbooks), just single interpretation of that world--playing as criminals doing crime.

So D&D isn't completely generic, since it's still pretty much written for high-powered fantasy and not other genres, but it's far more generic than many other systems (and far less than others). Whether you like that or not depends, as you say, on how much you like putting together your own game.

That’s (more or less) where I was going with wide versus narrow focus. Subbing back in the OP’s particular language, that would make Blades in the Dark the more bespoke game and D&D a more generic one.

 

[Reynard]

That’s (more or less) where I was going with wide versus narrow focus. Subbing back in the OP’s particular language, that would make Blades in the Dark the more bespoke game and D&D a more generic one.

Isn't that what I wrote? Maybe I wasn't as clear as I thought.