Your thoughts on Generic versus Bespoke systems.

[Blue]

I wouldn't make that assumption. Having GMed both, and having read and played with M&M's Heroes High materials through multiple editions, there's quite a bit of exploring teenage identities, relationships with the adult hero and mundane worlds, and other teenage topics in M&M teen hero campaigns. The chance that a Claremont Academy (or other teen hero) campaign in M&M explores identity isn't even close to nil in the wild.

Are the majority of the rules gives around that?

Because we aren't talking about "what can a GM do narratively", we're talking about game systems that mechanically support a specific style of play.

Can a few words (literally) from just about any adult affect the ability of every PC to make them better at some moves and worse at others unless they reject that adult's influence over them?

 

[Blue]

Let's talk for a second about the truly generic systems: Hero, GURPS, FUDGE/Fate, Cortex (I gather; I have never seen it).

Cortex Prime is a different beast. Picture if instead of Fate, you said "these 450 specific Fate implementations for different genres and individual settings". It's not a game. You can not pick it up an play it. It's a set of tools for making a bespoke game. It's very different than GURPS, Hero System, or Fate.

I'm not saying this as a defender - while I kickstarted it I haven't played Cortex Prime. I love Fate for many types of games, and I played far too much Champions in my youth.

It's really a different beast. For example, do you want attributes in your game? Do you want skills? How about roles? Special effects? Relationships? What do you want to trigger character growth? How do you track damage?

The end result can be a lot less physics engine and a lot more bespoke - or not - than what a Universal system can give you.

 

[The Shadow]

I present that unlike D&D, dumping the setting is a house rule for BitD - it has mechanical support in terms of named NPCs, it terms of playbook features and equipment that only makes sense if certain things, exist in it.

Interesting. I haven't played (or even read) BitD, but I have played in a full campaign of Scum & Villainy. And we didn't find it difficult to switch out the setting for one of our own making.

Now, granted, our setting did need to share some particular things with the book's setting - Precursor artifacts, mystics of the Way, and so on. And part of our worldbuilding was to come up with a similar array of factions up to a variety of goals.

Is that what you're talking about, or is S&V genuinely different from BitD in this respect?

 

[billd91]

Are the majority of the rules gives around that?

Well, that’s why Masks is a bespoke system rather than a generic one, isn’t it? It’s tailored to a particular play experience with its labels, playbooks, and influence.

 

[pemerton]

Let's talk for a second about the truly generic systems: Hero, GURPS, FUDGE/Fate, Cortex (I gather; I have never seen it).

What most "universal" or "generic" RPGs bring to the table is a rule set that establishes what amounts to a "physics engine" -- that is, a set of rules about how the world and the people in it work.

This isn't what Cortex+ brings to the table.

It brings a framework for establishing descriptors (for characters and for scenes/situations/story elements) and a resolution process built around them.

This, by the way, is why I put D&D in the broadly "generic" category: it is all about providing a common language from which a wide variety of game styles can emerge (as someone said previously, you can run Greyhawk and Spelljammer in D&D; it can't be that bespoke).

I am using GH for a Torchbearer campaign, and it would be pretty straightforward to introduce Spelljamming into Torchbearer too. I'm not sure this shows that Torchbearer is a generic system in any interesting way. It will still be - as it says on the tin - a game of desperate adventure.

 

[MGibster]

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.

I'm going to disagree on two things. The first is that Forgotten Realms, Planescape, Spelljammer, Ravneloft, and Dark Sun were not played in such a manner as to be significantly different from one another. At the end of the day, they were all D&D with their classes, alignments, spell system, and how combat works. Nor do the rules support every style of play. Political intrigue? How do the rules support such a campaign and what will the poor Fighter do the whole time? Don't get me wrong, you can do it, but the rules are going to leave some classes lacking.

 

[Aldarc]

Let's talk for a second about the truly generic systems: Hero, GURPS, FUDGE/Fate, Cortex (I gather; I have never seen it).

What most "universal" or "generic" RPGs bring to the table is a rule set that establishes what amounts to a "physics engine" -- that is, a set of rules about how the world and the people in it work. Now, they aren't without stylistic input -- GURPS makes a bunch of assumptions about tone that are different than Fate's assumptions, for example. But by and large what they are trying to do is establish a baseline for interpreting the "reality" of the game space and thereby giving the GM and players a common language from which to build the story of the game they are playing. This, by the way, is why I put D&D in the broadly "generic" category: it is all about providing a common language from which a wide variety of game styles can emerge (as someone said previously, you can run Greyhawk and Spelljammer in D&D; it can't be that bespoke).

I used to be really into the Hero system, but that was mostly because of Champions. So Hero wasn't, for me, a truly "universal system." Even so, i read enough comics to know there were many different styles, tones, themes and even genres under the umbrella of the "superhero genre." So, by that definition, even Champions (as opposed to hero) was a generic system. You could build it to do a very specific thing, and then re-build it to do a different thing.

IMHO, while I agree that Fate and Cortex gravitate more towards being toolkits, I think that their core systems aren't so much "physics engines" but "scene resolution engines." Fate/Cortex are more interested in the conceptual space that the player characters occupy in the fiction and how who they are as characters influence that scene. There is even a section in Fate's Book of Hanz entitled "Fiction, Not Physics" that labors this point.

 

[The Shadow]

IMHO, while I agree that Fate and Cortex gravitate more towards being toolkits, I think that their core systems aren't so much "physics engines" but "scene resolution engines."

Yep. This is key to understanding Fate: If the game is trying to simulate anything, it's story beats rather than reality.

 

[Tonguez]

.

It's pretty much axiomatic that no system, no matter how generic, is good at everything. Fate, for example, is designed to work with highly competent, proactive characters. You can certainly try to relax those constraints to play zero-to-hero or horror, but the system will tend to fight you. Like, I don't think starting with a +2 skill pyramid would be much fun at all.

theres a Fate Accelerated Pathfinder Hack that works on the premise that standard Fate Character (3 Aspects, 3 Refresh, [+2, +1, +1] in Approaches, and 3 free Stunts) is roughly equivalent to 5th-6th level Pathfinder character.
They then have a handy table for adjusting to level one up to 20+.

While youre right its not easy I do find horror is easier in FATE than in DnD, low refresh and compelable consequences on a short mental stress track helps to pull the players in to the tension

 

[Reynard]

Yep. This is key to understanding Fate: If the game is trying to simulate anything, it's story beats rather than reality.

I don't think that's true. Fate puts a lot of design space toward genre emulation through narrative tools,but not really structural story tools. And the core system is pretty standard,mechanically speaking. Of course, there are lots of variations and in general it seems like there are crunchy Fate games and light Fate games. And Dresden has an example of both!

 

[Blue]

Interesting. I haven't played (or even read) BitD, but I have played in a full campaign of Scum & Villainy. And we didn't find it difficult to switch out the setting for one of our own making.

Now, granted, our setting did need to share some particular things with the book's setting - Precursor artifacts, mystics of the Way, and so on. And part of our worldbuilding was to come up with a similar array of factions up to a variety of goals.

Is that what you're talking about, or is S&V genuinely different from BitD in this respect?

I've only given S&V a skim, haven't had a chance to play, so please correct me if I have anything incorrect.

I think one big difference is that S&V setting-wise is more a common amalgamation of several settings such as Star Wars, Cowboy Bebop, Firefly, etc. It's not a common setting, with needing things like The Way, but it's not particularly unique. As you mention, you can fit in the particulars to a variety of settings.

On the other hand the parts of the BitD setting that need to fit in, while individually things you would see elsewhere, are very rarely put together, especially with the twists they put on them. Just like in S&V these are reflected in the playbooks, so you need to have all of them.

If i was going to use a cooking analogy, S&V might require flour, eggs, and milk - something that you can make may recipes out of, while BitD requires pickled cabbage, chocolate, and jalapeno peppers. Individually ingredients that you can use, but when you require them all it really locks down what you can make.

I believe that both the playbooks and the crew sheets are more tightly tied to those particulars as well, but that may be my liited familiarity with S&V saying so. Some like the Mystic have stronger ties, but more of the playbooks felt like they would work in a wide variety of settings.

EDIT: This isn't saying S&V isn't bespoke. This started as disagreement with @Neonchameleon that BitV was easily swappable to other settings, and then just answering a question about how S&V was more swappable. Just being able to change settings isn't a sign that something isn't bespoke.

 

[Reynard]

I've only given S&V a skim, haven't had a chance to play, so please correct me if I have anything incorrect.

I think one big difference is that S&V setting-wise is more a common amalgamation of several settings such as Star Wars, Cowboy Bebop, Firefly, etc. It's not a common setting, with needing things like The Way, but it's not particularly unique. As you mention, you can fit in the particulars to a variety of settings.

On the other hand the parts of the BitD setting that need to fit in, while individually things you would see elsewhere, are very rarely put together, especially with the twists they put on them. Just like in S&V these are reflected in the playbooks, so you need to have all of them.

If i was going to use a cooking analogy, S&V might require flour, eggs, and milk - something that you can make may recipes out of, while BitD requires pickled cabbage, chocolate, and jalapeno peppers. Individually ingredients that you can use, but when you require them all it really locks down what you can make.

I believe that both the playbooks and the crew sheets are more tightly tied to those particulars as well, but that may be my liited familiarity with S&V saying so. Some like the Mystic have stronger ties, but more of the playbooks felt like they would work in a wide variety of settings.

Band of Blades is even more bespoke. It's not only a highly specific setting, it is a highly specific story. It is really only designed to do the one thing it does. I only own the main FitD games (BitD, S&V, BoB), so maybe some of the others that have appeared are more general use?

 

[Campbell]

One of the issues we're always going to have is the way some trad gamers frame playstyle: as just different sorts of fictional experiences rather than how play is structured and organized. As the what instead of the how. This will always lead to a failure to understand the value presented by a huge class of games. For instance, Tales of Xadia, D&D 5e and Dungeon World all operate within the same basic conceptual niche (when it comes to the sorts of scenarios they support) but they all fundamentally play in extremely different ways. The approach both players and (especially) GMs are expected to take to play are viscerally different.

 

[overgeeked]

Using your terms, I prefer either universal systems or bespoke systems and tend to greatly dislike generic systems.

A well-made purpose built system can absolutely sing when being used for its purpose, but I find a lot of them are too specific so they’re limited to that one style, which is great if there’s a lot of replay there, otherwise not so much. Like Masks. If you like teenage-drama superheroes, it’s the best. But once you want something slightly different, it’s best to use a different system.

Generic systems strike me as pointlessly bland. They sacrifice flavor, style, and focus for little to no gain. They effectively put all the work of flavor, style, and focus on the referee. The best I can explain it is by comparison. 5E is a generic fantasy game. Dungeon Crawl Classics is a purpose built sword & sorcery game.

But I love universal systems. The lighter the better. To me, the simplicity of the rules and the intentionally “generic” nature serve a purpose. To allow you to use the system for anything. While bespoke mechanics can sing, they are just as often overwrought nightmares to learn. Gimme Fate or Risus or FKR.

 

[hawkeyefan]

So what makes folks consider Dark Sun and Forgotten Realms the same game, but Blades in the Dark and Scum & Villainy different games?

Is it just a matter of branding? What makes the first two somehow more the same?

 

[Reynard]

So what makes folks consider Dark Sun and Forgotten Realms the same game, but Blades in the Dark and Scum & Villainy different games?

Is it just a matter of branding? What makes the first two somehow more the same?

FR and DS are not games -- they are settings served by the same game, despite significant difference in theme, mood and assumptions.

But that's not really why I consider BitD and S&V to be "bespoke." Those games are bespoke because their play loops are defined and focused and the system exists only to support that play loop. The play loop of D&D is not only less well defined, the system doesn't really do anything to support the play loop. Note: there is certainly an argument to be made that OD&D was a bespoke system (such that it was) but every successive generation of D&D has eroded its focus.

 

[Aldarc]

So what makes folks consider Dark Sun and Forgotten Realms the same game, but Blades in the Dark and Scum & Villainy different games?

Is it just a matter of branding? What makes the first two somehow more the same?

It's peculiar to be sure. Numenera should be considered a "bespoke game" by some people's criteria. It is a game tied to a particular, specialized setting. However, Monte Cook Games expanded the core rules of Numenera to include other settings (e.g., The Strange, etc.) and created the more generic Cypher System, so people rarely talk of Numenera as a "bespoke game." And yet a number of PbtA and FitD games are talked about as "bespoke games" despite the robustness of the core rules and play loops to play other settings, genres, and games? Curious.

 

[Reynard]

It's peculiar to be sure. Numenera should be considered a "bespoke game" by some people's criteria. It is a game tied to a particular, specialized setting. However, Monte Cook Games expanded the core rules of Numenera to include other settings (e.g., The Strange, etc.) and created the more generic Cypher System, so people rarely talk of Numenera as a "bespoke game." And yet a number of PbtA and FitD games are talked about as "bespoke games" despite the robustness of the core rules and play loops to play other settings, genres, and games? Curious.

Yes, but most of the PbtA and FitD games rebuild their core systems, play books, etc to fit very narrow play loops. That is what those core systems are good at.

As to Cypher -- I am not a huge fan of it and don't think it fits Numenera particularly well, and certainly doesn't fit other genres well. I played The Strange a bit, too, and just did not jive with Cypher.

 

[Aldarc]

FR and DS are not games -- they are settings served by the same game, despite significant difference in theme, mood and assumptions.

Didn't Dark Sun have a modified different set of rules to support its setting?

But that's not really why I consider BitD and S&V to be "bespoke." Those games are bespoke because their play loops are defined and focused and the system exists only to support that play loop. The play loop of D&D is not only less well defined, the system doesn't really do anything to support the play loop. Note: there is certainly an argument to be made that OD&D was a bespoke system (such that it was) but every successive generation of D&D has eroded its focus.

Would you consider B/X a bespoke game? One thing that fascinated both the Forge and OSR about B/X was how it had core play loops that reinforced its dungeon-delving themes.

Yes, but most of the PbtA and FitD games rebuild their core systems, play books, etc to fit very narrow play loops. That is what those core systems are good at.

"Very narrow play loops"?

Also, isn't this kinda what TSR did with Dark Sun? They rebuilt and removed classes/races, changed the core rules, etc. to accomodate a different setting?

As to Cypher -- I am not a huge fan of it and don't think it fits Numenera particularly well, and certainly doesn't fit other genres well. I played The Strange a bit, too, and just did not jive with Cypher.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I honestly don't care if you love it or hate it. I don't think that a bespoke system is defined by either "do I like the system?" or "do I think that the system fits the setting well?" The bottom line is that the Cypher System was originally created by Monte Cook and Shanna Germain for the Numenera setting.

 

[hawkeyefan]

FR and DS are not games -- they are settings served by the same game, despite significant difference in theme, mood and assumptions.

But that's not really why I consider BitD and S&V to be "bespoke." Those games are bespoke because their play loops are defined and focused and the system exists only to support that play loop. The play loop of D&D is not only less well defined, the system doesn't really do anything to support the play loop. Note: there is certainly an argument to be made that OD&D was a bespoke system (such that it was) but every successive generation of D&D has eroded its focus.

What do you mean by playloop? What is the 5e playloop? I think I’m missing something and that may help me follow what you’re saying.