Alright, I've been to a couple of forums, I've answered other peoples posts, I've helped, explained, I've started threads, asked questions and questioned answers.......
Yet I get a very strong impreession that a large percentage of gamers, or atleast those that use forums and design there own games, have a strog dislike for universal systems, mechanics that are seperate to settings, and the ability to alter the mechancis and rules for their own ends.
So, the question I would like answered is.....
What are peoples views on Universal systems, General mechanics and alterable rules?????????????????????????????????
If anyone does respond, I have no problem with heated or heartfelt responses, so long as you explain it to me! As yet, I get a lot of buzz and no substance as to the faults, so if there is a big problem with it, I'd like to know!
Hello, Autocrat!
Your strong impression is essentially correct. However, it's not the sort of thing that can be answered trivially; for a complete answer, start at the beginning of the articles (perhaps 'System Does Matter') and read forward, paying particular attention to the concept of 'incoherence'.
The short answer, though is: different goals in game play are facilitated by different rules. No set of rules can be functional for all goals, and thus an attempt at 'universal' rules is doomed to failure.
If what you mean by universal is that you are going to have the same goals, types of premise, and color, you're just going to put it in different settings, then - sure, that's probably possible. Not all that universal, though.
- James
Ok, here's mine.
A game should be about something. It should have a purpose. The designer should have a clear idea of what it is the characters are supposed to be doing. Before you object, let me note for the record that this does not mean the game must be narrowly focused. It may be narrowly focused but it doesn't have to be.
There are many ways to slice the pie, it is my firm belief that the designers job is to slice it. It may be a big slice, it may be a sliver, but it should be sliced. Failure to do this, IMO is a huge cop out on the part of the designer.
Here are some examples of the wide range of pie slices you can have.
Sorcerer: limits play to just being about sorcerers and their relationship to their demons. But setting, time period, types of stats, types of demons, themes...pretty much anything and everything else is in play.
Violence Future: much more narrowly defined. The setting is fixed to Nippon-techno future with characters coming from a very narrow range of society. It then goes a step further and starts game play at the END of those characters lives.
Universalis: slicese a square piece of the pie if you'll allow the analogy. It is universal in the sense that a game can be about anything, anyone, anywere. But it is very specific about the method of how to get there.
Riddle of Steel: Easily applied to anything that could be considered gritty low fantasy, and relatively easy to modify so that its been and being used for a variety of other settings, includeing sci fi oriented ones. Character selection is quite broad but the where this game cuts its slice is with a specific type of scenario. One that focuses in like a laser beam on the drives and passions of those characters and ties them emotionally into the conflict right from the beginning.
Each of these games are dramatically different, each of them slice the pie in a different way. But each of them make a statement by how they slice it.
Multiverser: In some ways follows the reasoning of the universal do anything go anywhere game mechanic. In a sense its slice of the pie is almost the whole pie. But yet its not the whole pie. Multiverser is a universal system because the focus of the game is on traveling between worlds. There for the game is focused on making sure every single possible world in the multiverse is accessible. Even so, I think the game would benefit tremendously from a good couple prunings with a heavy duty hedge trimmer, but now where getting more down to the level of personal preference than conceptual lines in the sand.
And that to me IS a line in the sand. If the game doesn't slice the pie somewhere, somehow. Then the game is pointless. There is no reason for its existance, no reason for me to bother to look at it, and no reason for me to play it or help with its design. Take a stand, draw a line.
Suck it up and announce to the world "this is what my game is about"
Have the courage to say "if you don't like what this game is about, go play something else, I won't mind"
To me (with the exception of games like Multiverser and some uses that Marco and others give to GURPs) building a game that attempts to be all things to all people is...well, I'll take you at your word on heated and heartfelt responses and just come right out and say it...the cowards way out.
By that I mean, being so fearful of some gamer rejecting the game that the designer tries to please everyone and give a little something to everyone. So that even if its not the players favorite design they at least find something they can say "I like this part" about.
To me, the success of a game is not in the number of people who like it kinda sorta. But the number of people who are absolutely passionate about it...passionate about liking it, or passionate about hating it.
So, take a stand. Make a statement about what the game is to be about. And then focus all of the mechanics, not just the attribute choice, on exploring that better than its ever been done before. That's how you make a game people will be interested in. Generic has been done a million times already.
Now you see, the things that confuse me are like the following.....
... james_west ...The short answer, though is: different goals in game play are facilitated by different rules. No set of rules can be functional for all goals, and thus an attempt at 'universal' rules is doomed to failure.
... Valamir ...
"... To me (with the exception of games like Multiverser and some uses that Marco and others give to GURPs) building a game that attempts to be all things to all people is...well, I'll take you at your word on heated and heartfelt responses and just come right out and say it...the cowards way out. ..."
emphasis on the latter part..... " the cowards way out "
I thought that in most areas of design and creation, the ideal was to get as close to perfection as possible. Of course, that is taking the techological design view, not the creative arts dewsign view!
Now that I've said that, could this be the potential blind spot I'm having with grasping certain failing concepts... the fact that I look at it as a mechanic, as a machine, where as others view it as expression and creation?
I simply fail to see why its the Cowards way out, why it is exceedingly likely to fail etc. When I first started using forums, seveeral people told me it would be hard, if not impossible, to make multiple levels of skills available without altering the rules. The same people said that you can't have Stats/Abilities that can be varied, again, it was impossible.
Yet on these accounts, and others, I have found it simply logical to make things contractable/expandable.... so why do people say these things don't work?
Still, any others with their views, and if James_West and Valimir could respond to my posting, I'd appreciate it!
Quote from: AutocratI thought that in most areas of design and creation, the ideal was to get as close to perfection as possible. Of course, that is taking the techological design view, not the creative arts design view!
Perhaps it'll make sense if I use your analogy.
Why isn't it possible to design the perfect tool? Why do we have to have saws, hammers, screwdrivers, and pliers? Heck - a lot of folks even have a dozen different types of saw. Why can't they just make a universal saw?
This is clearly a technological design problem, not a creative arts design problem - but the answer is precisely the same.
If you say you want to design a universal tool, perhaps you'll be able to come up with some monstrosity that can hammer
and saw
and drive screws, but it won't work nearly as well as having a whole set of tools, each designed for a specific purpose.
Thus - in games, in any specific instance of play, you're not playing any possible game, you're playing one specific game. And if the set of rules you have are designed for that specific game, they'll work a whole lot better than rules designed for just any game.
Does that make sense ?
- James
Quote from: AutocratI thought that in most areas of design and creation, the ideal was to get as close to perfection as possible. Of course, that is taking the techological design view, not the creative arts dewsign view!
The problem is that the exact same game which
you think is perfect, someone else may not like. Even further than this, the exact same game which you think is perfect for one campaign might be inappropriate for another. To take a simple example: use the same game system to run a "Red Dwarf" campaign and a "Babylon 5" campaign. These are both sci-fi space opera TV series, but they have vastly different flavor. I suspect that using the same rules for both would be unsatisfying.
Now, where I disagree with Ralph and James is on what a game should specify.
Quote from: ValamirA game should be about something. It should have a purpose. The designer should have a clear idea of what it is the characters are supposed to be doing. Before you object, let me note for the record that this does not mean the game must be narrowly focused. It may be narrowly focused but it doesn't have to be.
...
Universalis: slicese a square piece of the pie if you'll allow the analogy. It is universal in the sense that a game can be about anything, anyone, anywere. But it is very specific about the method of how to get there.
But isn't this feature of Universalis also true of other universal systems? i.e. They aren't about a particular setting or situation, but instead provide specific methods. Take "The Pool", for example, or the HERO System. Neither of these claims to be all things to all people. They have specific design principles and methods. However, they also give no idea of what "the characters are supposed to be doing" (as Ralph suggests) -- nor do they give a concrete idea about "types of premise" which they are designed for (as James suggests).
Games should be designed with a specific game flavor and style of play in mind, but there can be very different things which they are specific to.
Quote from: ValamirTo me (with the exception of games like Multiverser and some uses that Marco and others give to GURPs) building a game that attempts to be all things to all people is...well, I'll take you at your word on heated and heartfelt responses and just come right out and say it...the cowards way out.
I agree with this, but I don't think it is specific to universal systems. Universal systems can know their audience -- i.e. The Pool or the HERO System aren't trying to be all things to all people. Conversely, I think that many setting-specific games which suffer from this problem.
There are many different ways that games try to be specific. Some games are specific to a setting, but try to broadly cover different types of campaigns in that setting -- like maybe "Blue Planet" or "HarnMaster". Some games have a particular genre feature which they are specific to, like "All Flesh Must Be Eaten" (which is about zombie film plots which can take place in very different settings). Some games are universal, but try for a specific style of play (i.e. compare GURPS and "Savage Worlds" and "The Pool").
I think that the latter is actually a better way to specify your system. You have to accept that a given system won't please all people, and won't be appropriate for all styles of play even for the same people. Thus, GURPS will not work for Toon -- which even Steve Jackson accepts, I think.
This topic come up not that long ago (sorry I don't remember which thread it was), and something you need to define is what is meant by "universal."
If I remember, there were 3 definitions:
1. The "One-True-System." A perfect system that works for all 3 GNS modes.
2. A system that can be used for any setting or genre, like GURPS or FUDGE.
3. A system like Multiverser, which allows you to play in different settings. (I know that sounds alot like #2, but I don't remember exactly what was said in the topic, I just remember that there was a third category which involved Multiverser.)
People here definitely don't believe in the One-True-System, but some people are more into the GURPS or FUDGE idea, if those systems match your style of play.
QuoteThere are many different ways that games try to be specific. Some games are specific to a setting, but try to broadly cover different types of campaigns in that setting -- like maybe "Blue Planet" or "HarnMaster". Some games have a particular genre feature which they are specific to, like "All Flesh Must Be Eaten" (which is about zombie film plots which can take place in very different settings). Some games are universal, but try for a specific style of play (i.e. compare GURPS and "Savage Worlds" and "The Pool").
I'll ask for your indulgence a bit as I'm not overly familiar with Blue Planet or All Flesh.
I agree absolutely with the concept of what you've said. However, IME most games that say they have a focus (the Blue Planet is about the specific circumstances of blue planet, or AFMBE is about zombies) then turn around and marry that to a system which is itself pretty generic and doesn't say much about the specific circumstances the game is laying claim to (again I can't specifically address these two very well)
For instance. Take the system for Blue Planet. How easily could you use that system to play a game set on modern day earth. How easily could you play Spy Craft with AFMBE rules.
By definition, the more a system is portable to other slices of the pie, the less well it drives home the importance of the slice of pie its laying claim to.
Harn I think suffers from this same thing and is why I never found the game at all appealing despite my appreciation for the effort that's gone into creating the world. What are the issues, the concepts, the elements that make Harn unique? Why Harn and not real historical Europe? Why Harn and not Glorantha? Why Harn and not Mythic Europe from Ars Magica? Why Harn?
And then part two of the question. What in Columbia's game mechanics are specifically targeted at the answers to the first question? Where's the statement?
Instead, what I've seen of Harn is that the system is entirely secondary. Columbia didn't so much write a game as they wrote a travelogue to an imaginary realm and pretty much punted when it came to makeing the game. They gave you a bit of everything, made a nod to gritty realism, but never really took a stand to say what the game is about. What is playing in Harn all about? And how do the mechanics promote that?
Riddle of Steel is a similiar low fantasy world. Given 20+ years of dedicated writing by people desireing to do so there's no reason why Wyerth couldn't be just as developed a setting as Harn. But yet there's no doubt what TRoS is about. In fact, you could take TRoS and play in the world of Harn with it, and suddenly there is a statement being made.
I see it as both a technological design and a creative design issue.
From the technological standpoint: Form must follow function. That's the most fundamental basic truth of technology whether we're talking flint tools and clay pots or computers and space ships. What is the function of the game? It is insufficient to be overly broad with this with answers like "to have fun", "to explore the world", just as it's insufficient to define the function of a tool as "to help me build a house" or to "fix stuff". While technically correct, as design parameters they're useless statements. For a tool to be perfect, form must follow function. For form to follow function, there must be a function, a specific one. Thus the pursuit of design perfection in an RPG must start with defining a specific function.
From a creative design standpoint there is then the artistic quality on top of the dictates of pure design. I will try to be brief here to avoid putting my foot in my mouth talking art theory which is not my strong suit. But from my perspective there is a difference between commercial art and personal art. Art that is created because its ones job to create it (at which point it becomes more of a technical issue like that above) and art that is created because there is some piece of the artist's soul that demands to come out.
From my perspective art of the latter type, must be making a statement of some kind. Must have some meaning of its own. Commercial art you do for a paycheck. RPGs will never really grant you a paycheck worth much, so designing RPGs from a commercial standpoint seems pretty pointless. There are far better ways to put talent to work commercially. RPGs should have soul to them.
Quote from: AutocratNow that I've said that, could this be the potential blind spot I'm having with grasping certain failing concepts... the fact that I look at it as a mechanic, as a machine, where as others view it as expression and creation?
The notion of different tools for different tasks is exactly the point I'd emphasize here. You say that you want a machine, a mechanic, that fills the bill. Okay, but if you strive toward efficiency, you'll find that the smoothest and simplest and cheapest machine is one that has a specific task and does it exceedingly well, with no divergence. This is really Ford's assembly-line, taken to the modern robotic level: if you have a robot that installs car doors and nothing else, and does it fantastically well, you have perfection
in a limited sphere.
Now let's suppose you want a game where the point is to have lots of cool kung fu fights, and have a way to rant about different styles and whatnot, but everything else (such as, let's say, guns) really doesn't matter. Okay, so you design a system that does kung fu fights and nothing else. You end up with, ideally, a wonderful system to fit a certain objective, but one that doesn't fit other objectives.
If you now decide to generalize, to make this kung fu system great for guns, you're going to have to make changes. As soon as you do that, you weaken the "perfection" of the first system to make it serve a larger range of purposes.
Going back to the tool analogy, a nail-puller makes a pretty good crowbar. But if you were to design it to fit both purposes, it'd be decent -- even good -- for both purposes, but not as good as having a nail-puller
and a crowbar.
Again, if you want to build cabinets by hand, and you have a single saw, you want it to cover every possible sawing purpose. A saw that only does one kind of sawing is not helpful, because it's a pain in the ass to make it work against itself. For example, a Japanese cabinet-maker's back-saw (which only works on the pull, not on the push, and is very small) will be exceedingly annoying if you have to rip up 2x4's. So what's the solution?
Well, you could have a saw that does both, of course, but you know, it will rip 2x4's rather slowly, and will do hand cabinetry work rather roughly. Why not have two different tools? Sure, you need a bigger basement, but what they hey?
This is the point of System Matters. If you want a system that does X thing really well, and don't care about anything else, you design or acquire a system that fits this description. If you now change your mind about what you want, you get a different system. A totally universal system probably does nothing wonderfully and everything OK; a semi-universal system does many things very well and a number of things pretty badly, then (often) claims that the things done badly don't matter anyway (this is the problem with GURPS, for example).
Does this help at all? Perfection doesn't exist in RPG's, any more than it does with car-building robots or woodworking tools: it's perfection
for something that can exist. So you have to work out what you want to achieve before you can find or develop a tool to achieve that.
Chris Lehrich
OK
Well, I'll start by thanking everyone so far... believe it or not, virtually all of that makde sense!
Most of all, I'll clearly thank Timfire, clehrich and John Kim, not for being more poignant per se, but managing to use certain words that struck a cord within me......
so saying...
When I state "universal" & "general", i mean that the game system I am working on is meant to be able to possess or perform the following;
* Not the be all and end all, nor the perfect Universal system. Really must find the correct term... how about versatile or flexibly generic?
Its just meant to allow peple the choices they normally lack, permit them to adapt as they play, and adapt the rules as they play also!
* Variable Resolution methods. - Different people like different things, yet to be honest, the differences are often not known. For the majority, it's the packaging and experience, not the system that made the difference. Even so, I think I have it so that the game will perform using D100 Roll under, Multiple Die or No Die, with the obvious Crit's, DoS stuff as well.
* Levels of Detail. - Again, due to different people wanting different things, you can opt to have very general, loose or specific skill types, item types, vehicles etc.
* Variable Stats. - Not everyone likes tri-stat, 6 Abilities, 12 Attributes etc. So the Stats are also alterable, you should be able to use the set you like.
* Be variable. - Not every game using these rules/mechanics will be broad scoped... some will be combat orientated, other towards adventure, some towards stealth etc. So saying, if the game is leaning in certain directions, why not make the related Stats, Skills and Items more important, and just generalise the rest. Thus a game involving Psionics and stealth would require details about those two groups, yet things like combat, firearms, vehicles, survival skills, cybertechnology, mecha and whatever can all be reduced to general terms instead, highlighting the level of importance, or lack of!
The reason I have doe this, and am doing it still, is quite simple, yet largely profound...... how many times have you progressed to a point where the rules aren't enough, the players/gm's etc. want to do something else, go a different way, try something unusual, and found that the rules are either missing, or seem hashed out!
How often have you played several different games, and realised theres little difference between them?
Have you ever broken several different RPG's, by different houses, and looked at the component parts, and then replaced them, swapping bits between, to see the result?
To be honest, I found the real difference between the games, the key driving force of setting, genre and flavor, isn't specialised mechanics, its called text!
The word things emotively, they pay particular detail to the important things and leave the rest as shadows etc.
Thats the major difference, (of course, IMO! LOL).
Now, I can understand someone wanting a particular style of play, thinking of how the game would look, the characters, the things they will do etc..... then create rules around the concept. I believe this is what most people do. This explains why most universal systems are bland or generic. Instead, why not generate key concepts for mechanics, then offer varying levels of detail, options, skills, items, traits etc. for each type of general group. Then, as and when settings come along, you have a key area to build from. you know the stats available will work, the math of the mechanics is there, the skeletal frame work of skill types and equipment lists are laid out, all you have to do is sculpt it to your taste!
Things like, hey, I want a heroic epic of combat and warfare, then increase the detail on combat, weapons, highlight the importancce of physical attributes, give all characters a moderate bonus to the Vitality pool or what ever!
things like, hey, deep, dark, shadowy and dangerous, a little mystery, a bit of lurk etc..... great, lower the vitality levels, highlight on senses, observation, mental alertness, amke characters roll for sanity checks agaisnt the correct stat or resistance score.
Hmmm, you have a super street tough who travels the world throwing fireballs around, no problem... pay attention to the combat chapter, and where it says Manouvres, Advanced, pick your moves buddy. what, the fireball as well, look there, it says you can spend XXX and use either the Psionic powers or the Arcance spells for those affects, and the stats are the same as the skill level says!
i8t's not difficult, so long as you have done it without getting distracted, without bias , and without falling into the trap of personal prefence. (done that repeatedly, luckily I have "FRIENDS" that don't exactly like the same sort of thing, and point out any mistakes! Wonderful!).
So does that view make any sense?
Oh, I did engineering, and after several years study and then experience, I've learned to do most things with a hammer, screwdriver, adjustable spanner and butane lighter!!!
:)
No, not perfect, yet it does the job more than well enough in most cases.
Quote from: ValamirHarn I think suffers from this same thing and is why I never found the game at all appealing despite my appreciation for the effort that's gone into creating the world. What are the issues, the concepts, the elements that make Harn unique? Why Harn and not real historical Europe? Why Harn and not Glorantha? Why Harn and not Mythic Europe from Ars Magica? Why Harn?
And then part two of the question. What in Columbia's game mechanics are specifically targeted at the answers to the first question? Where's the statement?
Instead, what I've seen of Harn is that the system is entirely secondary. Columbia didn't so much write a game as they wrote a travelogue to an imaginary realm and pretty much punted when it came to makeing the game. They gave you a bit of everything, made a nod to gritty realism, but never really took a stand to say what the game is about. What is playing in Harn all about? And how do the mechanics promote that?
Riddle of Steel is a similiar low fantasy world. Given 20+ years of dedicated writing by people desireing to do so there's no reason why Wyerth couldn't be just as developed a setting as Harn. But yet there's no doubt what TRoS is about. In fact, you could take TRoS and play in the world of Harn with it, and suddenly there is a statement being made.
This seems contradictory to me. First you suggest that HarnMaster fails because it should be specific to Harn. However, then you say that TRoS can be successfully used to play in Harn instead of Weyrth. Surely the same criticism applies to TRoS, then. What are the issues, the concepts, the elements that make Weyrth unique? Why Weyrth and not Harn? Why Weyrth and not Mythic Europe from Ars Magica? Why Weyrth?
Now, there are certainly parts of each system which are world-specific. Weyrth sorcery is different than Harnic Shek Pvar. The races of each are similar but distinct. But as you note these are more surface features, so you could use modified HarnMaster to play in Weyrth, or vice-versa. There are also more deep-down differences in tone: dice pool vs percentile, and the use of Spiritual Attributes. These are not specific to Weyrth at all, but rather are part of the general tone of play. In
[TROS] The Riddle of Harn thread, Sigurth and I discussed differences of our Harn campaigns. We agreed that TROS was more heroic in tone.
HarnMaster is more down-to-earth, as reflected in the campaign I played in. It is more about fitting into society rather than finding a spiritual destiny. While there are a lot of ticky points I don't like about HM, I think it is a purposeful artistic effort. HarnMaster was not at all a "punt". For many years Harn existed only as a campaign setting, with no specific game system devoted to it. However, my impression is that they were dissatisfied with how other game systems handled role-playing in Harn. So HarnMaster was developed specifically to address what different was desired for adventures in Harn.
Quote from: ValamirBut from my perspective there is a difference between commercial art and personal art. Art that is created because its ones job to create it (at which point it becomes more of a technical issue like that above) and art that is created because there is some piece of the artist's soul that demands to come out.
From my perspective art of the latter type, must be making a statement of some kind. Must have some meaning of its own. Commercial art you do for a paycheck. RPGs will never really grant you a paycheck worth much, so designing RPGs from a commercial standpoint seems pretty pointless. There are far better ways to put talent to work commercially. RPGs should have soul to them.
Art and commerce have a difficult history, but I don't think that commercialism inherently lacks soul. If your art is such that no one outside of a tiny niche (esp. friends of friends) wants to read it, then it's meaning is largely irrelevant. This is the difference between popular art and niche art. These overlap because (1) soul sells, or at least can sell -- it is quite possible for heart-felt meaning to be recognized and even by a mass audience. (2) For a statement to be socially relevant, you may want to communicate it to a mass audience.
Autocrat,
You've essentially written the outline of an essay called, "System Doesn't Matter," which I think substantially contradicts the beliefs and experience of a great many folks here.
Quote from: AutocratTo be honest, I found the real difference between the games, the key driving force of setting, genre and flavor, isn't specialised mechanics, its called text!
I suspect that most of the systems you've looked at, from the point of view of the Forge folks, would be in the heavy Sim tradition that's been dominant for most of the past twenty years - and to a large extent I agree with you that their rules are interchangeable.
There are two substantial problems with your specific concept for a universal rules system.
(1) Modular though they may be, this still sounds like it'd wind up dwarfing advanced squad leader, in weight of rules. To wit, it sounds like you think, for instance, that the problem with GURPS
is that it doesn't have enough rules . That's also a system that's been almost infinitely expanded in terms of different books having different rules for complex areas. Fundamentally, the rules you propose will be difficult to use by anyone who isn't willing to get an advanced degree in them.
(2) We're not talking about different levels of complexity for different areas here, we're talking about the fact that the rules cause the universe to work in a fundamentally different way from one game to another. I suggest you read both Elfs (Ron Edwards) and My Life with Master (Paul Czege) for examples of games that you just couldn't play without using the specific rules published with them.
For you, I think that (2) doesn't really come into it, because it appears to me that what you
want is the ultimate sim system. Which is OK. I suspect, though, that the game you propose would sink under the weight of its own rules.
- James
Hello,
I recommend that people take some time to browse through previous discussions of the term "universal" here. Running a search on the term came up with these, among others (from most recent to oldest):
Universal and established systems (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=9629)
Universal vs. specific systems, for challenge in many arenas (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=9555)
Best/most popular universal systems? (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8923)
Universal RPG (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=7734)
Universal in search of distinctions (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=4964)
D20 as a universal system (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=4461)
Generic RPGs: one system to rule them all ... (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=3782)
The "universal" issue (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=196)
One of the shared goals at the Forge is to try to move forward with discussions and treat older discussions as an archive, in order to avoid running over and over the same ground. So even if you don't want to read every damn post in all of the above, I do think it serves everyone's benefit at least to do some browsing. Also, if anyone else can remember any important threads about this that I happened to miss, please post links.
Best,
Ron
I'm just going to poke my head in and toss out a small argument against modularity, which seems to be a holy grail of generic game designers. Because it is dumb.
Modular game systems, by definition, are incapable of capturing certain complex interactions that may be essential to particular settings; this makes them fail the universality test.
For instance, I might be playing a game where the characters are faeries whose health is dependent on the intensity of their magic. The intensity of their magic is directly related to their emotional states; a faerie is most powerful mystically and (resultantly) resilient physically when he is experiencing a particular mood.
Now suppose that I have "plugged in" a module for emotional states and a module for magic. By the definition of modularity, they cannot interact; how do I accomplish the interaction that I desired?
Quote from: John Kim
This seems contradictory to me. First you suggest that HarnMaster fails because it should be specific to Harn. However, then you say that TRoS can be successfully used to play in Harn instead of Weyrth. Surely the same criticism applies to TRoS, then. What are the issues, the concepts, the elements that make Weyrth unique? Why Weyrth and not Harn? Why Weyrth and not Mythic Europe from Ars Magica? Why Weyrth?
Not at all contradictory. From earlier in the thread.
QuoteRiddle of Steel: Easily applied to anything that could be considered gritty low fantasy, and relatively easy to modify so that its been and being used for a variety of other settings, includeing sci fi oriented ones. Character selection is quite broad but the where this game cuts its slice is with a specific type of scenario. One that focuses in like a laser beam on the drives and passions of those characters and ties them emotionally into the conflict right from the beginning.
Harnmaster is about Harn, and therefor its mechanics should reflect what's important about Harn. Riddle of Steel is not about Wyerth. Riddle of Steel is about the type of stories and situations the game is about. And its mechanics should (and do) reflect what's important about that.
QuoteHarnMaster is more down-to-earth, as reflected in the campaign I played in. It is more about fitting into society rather than finding a spiritual destiny.
Ok. So what part of the game mechanics are about fitting into society? I haven't looked through Harn recently enough to have the answer at my fingertips so I'm unsure whether there is or there isn't.
If I looked at a character sheet from your recent campaign, what would I see that indicates "aha...this campaign was about fitting into society"? Anything?
Quotefor many years Harn existed only as a campaign setting, with no specific game system devoted to it.
That matches what I know of it.
QuoteHowever, my impression is that they were dissatisfied with how other game systems handled role-playing in Harn. So HarnMaster was developed specifically to address what different was desired for adventures in Harn.
Excellent. As it should be. So what specifically was developed that demonstrates what's different about adventures in Harn. My perception is the whole thing is nothing more than a different perspective of "modeling reality" as a dozen dozen other games have done.
What is in Harnmaster that is more unique than simply someone else's different guess about how many points of armor a Hauberk is worth.
Alright.... I'll face the fact that out of the forums I've been to, and out of all the individuals, less than 10% seem to have any interest in Generic or universal rules. Thats fine.
The bit that really does worry me is that people seem to read things that I haven't said...... i.e. modular. When did I say modular?
For that matter, when did I say the be all and end all, or the ultimate?
Also, the rules aren't complex, they are the exact opposite. You choose the resolution you want, and you use that through out, no matter what you do, be it skills, talents, powers, mutations, spells, special combat techniques, what ever, the method is the same:
Base Stat + Skill/Talent/Spell + Difficulty + Opt. Modifiers = TN
Doesn't matter whether you use D100, Multiple Die or No die, the method is still the same!
How can that be complicated?
If it is a positive, you add it, a negative, you subtract it. High numbers mean more, low numbers mean less. No strange multiples, abstractions, reversals or what have you in certain other RPG's. Simple.
And before any one mentions the idea of l;evels of detail, these are replacements, not additions, to the process.... so the Skill would be Swords, or Big Swords, or Long Sword, not all of the above!
So, lets look at a standard RPG that everyone knows, and make the obvious comparisions, so that its clear.
AD&D
Herioc, slightly epic, adventure and action, Fantasy, Historical (in some cases)
D20, = or over system
Higher the stat, the better (apart from Armour Class & Thac0)
Skills can have modifiers.
Rules for most common situations
Rules for period armour & Weapons (roughly stoneage to renaissance)
Rules for Magic (similar variations, yet offers slight differences)
Rules for hit locations and critical hits.
Now imagine having that, yet having skills that tie in with a different setting, say 1920 america. Same goes for the equipment available. Lets update the vehicles as well.
Now, the harder part is altering the classes, yet it's still do-able, just lower the Hit Die they get, remember that the Stats will be altered as well, hmmm... not to shabby, not to much hard work.
Shame you had to do it all!
Strange thing is, you can do that with most systems!
All it takes is application and effort, thats it. A simplistic view, yet considering I've had to convert AD&D, Shadowrun, Cuperpunk, WOD and Cthulu, I'd say that it's fairly easy with that type of game.
I'll admit it may get difficult with some systems, but those are specifically designed as one offs, only to deal with certain things.... and to be honest, often require more learning than anything I'd put in print!
So, maybe I'm not asking the right questions.... may be I should be asking.... Why don't you like it.... rather than asking for factual ideas, I should refer to preference, because thats all I get, and more importantly, thats what matters the most!
Still, I'm going to bow my head and accept that I'm in a minority, that no matter what I say or do, people will automatically negate what is said or presented, and put their own statements in my place. It's happened so far, and it will keep happening.
So saying, I'll try hard not to mention generic, universal or flexible again.
So thank you all for the posts, yet I doubt if it's worth continueing, as some ne said, the sacks already been beaten empty, so why do it all again without progressing any further?
Quote from: ValamirQuote from: John KimHarnMaster is more down-to-earth, as reflected in the campaign I played in. It is more about fitting into society rather than finding a spiritual destiny.
Ok. So what part of the game mechanics are about fitting into society? I haven't looked through Harn recently enough to have the answer at my fingertips so I'm unsure whether there is or there isn't.
If I looked at a character sheet from your recent campaign, what would I see that indicates "aha...this campaign was about fitting into society"? Anything?
Sure. You'd see things like his family background, position in his family, and estrangement, and the distinction of family skills and occupational skills. You'd see that he was born on Agrazar 25, which means that he has sun sign Nadai, The Salamander. This is an association within the world (essentially like zodiac sign) which has a tangible effect on play. You'd see that he was a priest of Agrik, which implies a certain social role. This requires him to restore piety points by social ritual functions such as high mass. You'd see his financial situation.
Quote from: ValamirQuote from: John KimHowever, my impression is that they were dissatisfied with how other game systems handled role-playing in Harn. So HarnMaster was developed specifically to address what different was desired for adventures in Harn.
Excellent. As it should be. So what specifically was developed that demonstrates what's different about adventures in Harn. My perception is the whole thing is nothing more than a different perspective of "modeling reality" as a dozen dozen other games have done.
Well, it fits into the class of "modelling reality" games -- so in a broad sense that is true. But there are many specific features of Harn which were desired.
For example, HM has random character generation tailored to Harn. This is important because it allows imbalances. For example, TROS has a priority-based system, similar in principle to a point system. This means that noble characters will be less competant than commoners. This promotes an egalitarian attitude in play, which would be contrary to the social order of Harn. Thus, HM has no compensation for being common. HM also has suggestions on building families or groups with related social class, which can be used to avoid the noble/commoner divide.
Combat is gritty and gory, and specifically emphasizes the difficult nature of healing. In nearly all RPGs (including GURPS and TROS), any wound short of dismemberment will eventually heal fully given time as long as it doesn't kill you. In HM, there is emphasis on permanent impairment from wounds and infection of wounds during healing. This emphasizes the consequences of violence rather than heroism.
All of this amounts to a more gritty approach. In HM as compared to TROS, there are no big bonuses for following destiny or drive. So play tends to be more about compromising of one's principles and taking the expedient approach, rather than heroic action. There are many people who don't like this tone, but it definitely has meaning.
(Incidentally, if we want to discuss HarnMaster more, it should probably be split off into another topic.)
Quote from: AutocratI thought that in most areas of design and creation, the ideal was to get as close to perfection as possible. Of course, that is taking the techological design view, not the creative arts dewsign view!
Having been cited as (co-)creator of one of the more (critically) accepted more universal systems, let me weigh in and try to clarify a few things.
At the dawn of the nineteenth century, the intellectuals who framed the Constitution believed in something they called capital-R Reason; it was believed that if rational men got together and honestly debated any issue, they would eventually discover that they all agreed on the best answer, because Reason would have only one answer to every problem.
That notion has faded from the world; it failed to take into account something much more significant, Values. The abolitionists are the slavers were never going to come to a single solution dictated by Reason because they held different Values. For one side, the economic realities outweighed any supposed social or ethical issues involved, and for the other the economic realities could not be allowed to influence the real question.
The goal of a universal system is to attempt to address all worlds, all play styles, all preferences, in one system. It is not a possible goal; that said, you have agreed that you're not really headed that direction.
As a side clarification, you say that your system is not "modular", and you don't know where the idea originated that it was. I think it comes from aspects like this:
Quote* Variable Resolution methods. - Different people like different things, yet to be honest, the differences are often not known. For the majority, it's the packaging and experience, not the system that made the difference. Even so, I think I have it so that the game will perform using D100 Roll under, Multiple Die or No Die, with the obvious Crit's, DoS stuff as well.
What this appears to mean is that the game will provide a percentile mechanic, a die pool mechanic, a non-fortune mechanic, and several others, and the players will decide which one to use. Thus one game of Autocrat RPG will be played with D20's while another will be played with percentiles. This is what is meant by modular--you plug in those parts of the rules that you want to use, and unplug those which don't.
It's also what is meant by the complexity issue. Complexity in itself is not bad design; it is unnecessary complexity that is bad. In this case, if you're going to offer a half dozen different resolution systems, you're also going to have to explain in every section of the game how it works in connection with each of those resolution systems. What is a crit in percentile? What is a crit in dice pool? How do you determine spell success in non-fortune play? All of these questions would have to be answered somewhere; this leads to rules bloat, as a great proportion of the rules you are forced to include to handle the die pool system don't matter to me if I'm using the percentile system--but I might not know that until after I've read them.
Modular is not necessarily bad. To some degree, Multiverser uses a toolbox approach--we tell referees that they can determine the outcome of a situation using any of several approaches, and they should pick the one that best fits at the moment. It's also partly modular, in a very strange manner to which I will return in a moment.
I would ask which universal and generic systems you've already examined. It seems to me that Multiverser does most of what you're suggesting; that Universalis does a fair amount of it; that Fudge certainly offers a lot of these features. Re-inventing the wheel is a popular pastime among RPG designers, as we often don't know what's already been done in the field (Fantasy Heartbreakers are symptomatic of this, but there are other symptoms). Before you attempt to design something that does what you want, at least look to see how the problem has been addressed before now.
On the modularity of Multiverser, I think this may be instructive in the general question; see, although I designed a system that was intended to be completely universal, I agree that system matters and that it is important to design systems that express their settings. In recognition of this, Multiverser includes a sub-system that enables its player characters to become characters
in other games. People miss this--they think I mean that it enables referees to steal settings and use them for Multiverser, and I don't mean that. When Dark Omen Games releases
Legends of Alyria this year, there will be an appendix in the back which provides a way for Multiverser player characters to become Alyria player characters, subject to all the rules in that game system, with Multiverser providing a (very) few cover points that are outside Alyria's system but might be brought into play by Multiverser player characters. The point is made that Alyria does what it does extremely well, and the only way Multiverser can do that is in essence by importing Alyria into itself, stating that as long as the character is in this world, these are the rules in this world. (We've done this unofficially for a number of games; Legends of Alyria is the first one for which we have an agreement with the owner regarding the shared use of content.)
That's why people around here don't much care for most "universal" or "generic" systems: a system should do what it does well, and shouldn't attempt to do things which conflict with that. What Multiverser does well, I think, is make possible a game in which the rules shift to match the world, such that the integrity of the world and the integrity of the characters are both maintained.
In clarification of the categories of universal games
Quote from: Timfire1. The "One-True-System." A perfect system that works for all 3 GNS modes.
2. A system that can be used for any setting or genre, like GURPS or FUDGE.
3. A system like Multiverser, which allows you to play in different settings. (I know that sounds alot like #2, but I don't remember exactly what was said in the topic, I just remember that there was a third category which involved Multiverser.)
Multiverser's distinction is that play proceeds in many different and distinct worlds of differing genres/milieus; the rules make it possible to play the same game while moving between universes this way, from science fiction to swords & sorcery to horror to whatever else you want to play. There is also a "universal" approach typified by Rifts, in which all types of universes blend into one (Shadowrun might have some of this, mixing fantasy elements into a futuristic post-apocalyptic world, but that's just a sudden thought on my part and I don't know if it's accurate). Thus Rifts is one world that is everything, GURPS is any one world for which you want to create characters, and Multiverser is all different kinds of worlds as part of continuing play.
If I didn't already say so, I agree with most of what Ralph has said on this issue, and appreciate his comments on Multiverser. Game systems do work better if they have focus.
I hope this is helpful.
--M. J. Young
OK, Autocrat, unfortunately you pushed the "Universal" hotbutton, when you've now stated that you want something more limited. What might better be called "generic" in that I think that you mean to say that the system can be applied to any element of any genre equally. I think people should note that this is what he's talking about now.
So, the question then it what about generic games? Do people have problems with them? Well, it all depends on just how generic. That is, genre is composed of all sorts of things. And the question is does the system in question reall intend to address all of them, or some subset?
For example, does GURPS cover Shreyas' Fairies? Why not? If it were truely generic, wouldn't in be able to deal with that? As MJ puts it, it's like Values. Each generic game assumes that certain things are consistent across the genres being played. For instance, ever note how all of them assume humans as the "base" creature? What if there are no humans in the setting? The argument is that we then have a comparison to something familiar, but what if the game is about being in unfamiliar territory? There are genre's like that. So these "generic" games aren't addressing these particular variables.
What variables do they maintain as important? Well, first they tend to have combat systems, and be focused on them. Indicating that in whatever genre you play in, combat will be important.
Mike's Standard Rant #3: Combat Systems (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=2024)
But they don't give as much detail to, say, international diplomacy. So if the game is really about international diplomacy, will the game be generic to it?
OK, so you admit that no game is going to cover everything. But the problem becomes that in trying to cover as much as possible, which they do attempt, they don't specifically cover any particular genre well. Give me any generic game, and any genre that it's theoretically useful for, and I'll give you a game that does that genre better, or a rule that could be added that would make the generic game better for it. Proving it's not the best game right there.
Actually, I agree with you that one can successfully play a generic game, just like you can use your four tools to accomplish anything. But tell me this, if you have just your four tools, and there's a plasma torch right there next to you waiting to be used, the perfect tool for the job, are you still going to use the butane lighter? If you do, are you sure it's not an act of bravado (who are you anyhow, McGuyver)? Are you sure that it's producing the best product in the end? Why use the harder to employ tool when the other is on hand.
Now, I'm of the belief that there are times where the generic tool is probably as good as anything available for the task ahead of you. So, given that case, when nothing better is available, I think that generic games are fine for forging ahead. But I think that these moments are actually pretty rare.
Because there are some generic games out there that do better because they don't try to cover all the presumed axes. Take Sorcerer for instance. Not often thought of as generic, play is all about summoning and binding demons and such. But it has no set setting. So in many ways it's generic. When do you use Sorcerer? When you want to play in some particularly neat setting of your own design, and you want to ask the question "How far would the characters go to get what they want?"
Basically, if you look around, you'll find that games that are just as talorable have been created that more closely fit your needs. So the traditional Combat System generic model is pretty much obsolete at this point, except perhaps as a tool kit from which to actually design other games (see FUDGE, and less, HERO System).
Now, it's absolutely inarguable that there's some slight benefit from not having to learn a new system from game to game. But interestingly, the systems that tend to be generic are actually heavy. It can only be limited experience that would prompt you to say that D20, GURPS and Hero System are simple systmes. Compare the number of pages that you have to read in any of these (even GURPS Lite is 32 or something, and that's so limited it's laughable), to a game like MLWM, InSpectres, etc, which all match their genres so tightly that they can't be surpassed for playing in them.
So, I guess the question is whether the slight value added here really makes these games worth playing. Don't get me wrong, I love Hero System, and just played recently, in fact (Supers). But I love it because I'm very into exploration of system.
However, I fully realize that, for the same reason that it's a beautiful engine for such exploration, it's also just as detestable to some because of it. Generic games are GM games. By that I mean to say that it's folks like us, GMs, like to tinker with them thinking about the things that we "could" do with them. But when it gets down to actually playing, often the thought experiment doesn't equal the result. Because the players can't see inside our heads, and the system isn't really telling them what sort of play we're looking for. So instead you get some ghost of the play that you were looking for.
That's my observation, and that of a lot of people here. I note that you peg us as some sort of "Forum User" group, as if we don't have regular game groups, and don't actually play face to face. This couldn't be further from the truth. We're not banding here to come up with abstruse theories just to feel superior or something. My play, and I know that of others, has been creatly improved by the observations that we "forum posters" have made. So realize that we're no different than you, other than having had different experiences with RPGs, and you'll be able to understand what we're saying better. I'm detecting quite a bit of an "I'm not one of you guys" attitude. Which just isn't meritied.
Mike
Quote from: Mike HolmesOK, Autocrat, unfortunately you pushed the "Universal" hotbutton, when you've now stated that you want something more limited. What might better be called "generic" in that I think that you mean to say that the system can be applied to any element of any genre equally. I think people should note that this is what he's talking about now.
So, the question then it what about generic games? Do people have problems with them?
Just for the record, I see very little value in the Universal / Generic distinction. In any event most of my objections apply equally to either.
Depends on the definitions. Most people are assuming that Universal implies that everyone can use it for every game equally. While Generic as I'm putting it forth here (and as it's been proposed before) means that the game has some slant to it, but that that slant can be put into many different genres.
Hence Sorcerer would never claim to be Universal, in fact in some ways it's very specific of course. But Sorcerer can do Western, Sci-Fi, Fantasy, pretty much any genre you like with equal aplomb. So it's generic in some very significant ways.
Now, there are games like GURPS and Hero System that people say intend to be Universal by the above definition. But Marco and others disagree, and say that generic as defined above is all that's implied. That the Universal in GURPS title only means what I've said Generic means above. That nobody claims that their games are Universal by the above description.
I'm not here to argue any of that. The point is that Autocrat has stated clearly above that he doesn't mean Universal in the definition above, but instead generic. So, further criticisms should at least not discuss the Universal desriptor.
What you're attacking, and what I halfway agree with is that games like GURPS and Hero System are nothing but generic. That is, in trying to "accurately" cover all genres, they miss out on anything other than the base simulation of these things (and incidentally end up by tradition focusing on combat). Sorcerer doesn't fall into this category, because it's got it's generic slants, and a premise. D20 has it's generic slants and loads of player challenge (in theory). Do your criticisms apply to Sorcerer? If not it'e because the definition as generic allows us to disect these things more closely.
Universalis, OTOH, is pretty much only generic. Where I would argue that it's superior to other generic RPGs is in that it actually manages to avoid those accidental biases for the most part - any brought in are the player's own. That said, and I've said this before, any "premise" or "challenge" that exists in the game are created by players. As such they are no different than any game like GURPS or Hero System. I'd feel hypocritical saying otherwise, personally.
Still, Universalis is indispensible because it does generic things in a unique way. The other really big problem with other generic games is that they tend to approach their problems from identical angles. Do I play GURPS or Hero System or Action! or Fuzion or what? So, in that way, the "Typical Generic" system has been done, and anything else is just refinements.
So I think that many of your criticisms are valid, just that they overstate the case. The "retreat" from interesting premises of system do not make these games unplayable. Bland perhaps, but they're perfectly serviceable.
Mike
Well, I never said unplayable. Uninteresting...yes, I would put my name to that...which seems pretty synonomous with your use of "bland" (though I suspect I would more extreme in degree than you on this).
But I still find the Universal/Generic distinction to be of limited value precisely because no one (reasonably) would try to lay claim to the definition of Universal that's been put forth. Which means ALL of these games are "generic" under this naming scheme. Which means one can simply find and replace Universal with Generic in this entire thread, and have exactly the same result. Hense...little value.
But to state it differently, and return to my pie example.
a good design must
a) slice the pie somewhere, and
b) have a defineable reason for why the designer sliced it where he did.
My problem with Universal/Generic games is that they refuse to do 1, the other or both.
They either deny that the pie needs to be sliced at all, or they slice it, but for no good reason other than convenience or historical precedent.
So no, I don't think Sorcerer is a good generic game, because I would never put Sorcerer in the generic category to begin with. It slices the pie quite plainly. It draws the line in the sand and says "THIS is what I'm about" and it drives the game mechanics full bore at that mission statement.
And no, before anyone asks, I don't consider "to be rules light", "to be non genre specific", or "to model reality" to be valid lines to draw in the sand or slices of the pie.
Discussion of the whys and wherefors, should be relegated to another thread entirely.
Quote from: Valamira good design must
a) slice the pie somewhere, and
b) have a defineable reason for why the designer sliced it where he did.
My problem with Universal/Generic games is that they refuse to do 1, the other or both.
...
And no, before anyone asks, I don't consider "to be rules light", "to be non genre specific", or "to model reality" to be valid lines to draw in the sand or slices of the pie.
I don't think I get the point. I could care less about lines in the sand. For example, I like the HERO system -- it is arguably my favorite RPG system (alongside JB007, Ars Magica, and Buffy). I consider it to be a good design. It does not have a theoretical essay or explanation for why it is the way it is. Instead, it was playtested and changed based on play to be the way that the designers and fans like. I have played it many times and enjoy it greatly. It is not all things to all people and it doesn't handle every possible genre, but neither does it claim to be.
As far as I am concerned, this draws a line in the sand. There are plenty of games which are able to spout verbiage about their theoretical justification, but IMO the proof is in the pudding. It is up to the theory to explain why the HERO system is so good (in my experience, at least) -- not up to the HERO system to justify itself.
Your line, his line...you're both talking about preferences here.
Ralph, again, I only made the distinction because people had complained against the definition of Universal that I gave, and which the poster refuted. If you say that Universal doesn't mean that, it doesn't mean that others haven't used that definition. I'm just trying to get those with criticisms that are irrelevant to the thread to stop posting them. If you aren't making the irrelevant claim then you aren't who I'm talking to. The distinction has to be made for the people who you now say are in error as to their definition.
I'd be happy with your definition if you could just get other people to stop using the other one.
You may not have said Unplayable, but you did say:
QuoteIf the game doesn't slice the pie somewhere, somehow. Then the game is pointless. There is no reason for its existance,...
You did then go on to make some "for me" statements, but this sounds worse than "unplayable" actually. Like people who play are doing some pointless excercise.
Again, I think that you're just stating your preference, but it's come off as something more than that. I mean, you don't play every game that you help design, but you won't help design games like this. So it can't be just about your play - there's an agenda here. If that's not obvious from the ranty tone. In any case, I hope that autocrat sees that this part has only been statements of preference, and not some cogent theoretical argument for why generic games are inherently bad or something. Or have I missed something?
In any case, given this John, I don't see what any of this has to do with theory. By that statement we can see your anit-theory bias showing just as clearly. Ralph doesn't like it. Ralph is pro-theory. Therefore this must be an attack on it by the theory. Check your logic. Your statement doesn't amount to a challenge of System Does Matter, and you know it. Hero System is liked precisely because of it's system, not despite it.
In any case, I think that you guys have run Autocrat off.
Mike
Quote from: AutocratSo, maybe I'm not asking the right questions.... may be I should be asking.... Why don't you like it.... rather than asking for factual ideas, I should refer to preference, because thats all I get, and more importantly, thats what matters the most!
Still, I'm going to bow my head and accept that I'm in a minority, that no matter what I say or do, people will automatically negate what is said or presented, and put their own statements in my place. It's happened so far, and it will keep happening.
So saying, I'll try hard not to mention generic, universal or flexible again.
So thank you all for the posts, yet I doubt if it's worth continueing, as some ne said, the sacks already been beaten empty, so why do it all again without progressing any further?
What are you looking for? Validation?
Why not design your dream game and publish it? Whether it be as web freebie or the 1500 page three volume hardback leather bound compendiums with 50+ genre/game supplements, what do you have to lose? Only time and money, but its your dream. What is your dream worth to you?
Start desigining your game. Post your work-in-progress on a web site. Get stuck with a problem? Go to the Indie Game Design forum with a specific question about a specific problem and include a link to your game as it exists.
Follow your bliss. You might be surprised where you end up.
Talk Later,
Mark
All right then, now I feel calmer and less provocative..... here goes.
So, after all of this, how about if things are worded differently.....
A flexible and general system of mechanics and rules that are simple to understand and follow, that don't vary or get more complicated, that permits players and DM's to choose the level of detail of Characters, Skills, Equipment etc., that work within a variety of settings, genres, flavours, feels, atmospheres etc. designed for the game.
There, is that more acceptable?
I'm still deeply confused by the response I get, and looking at other such threads, I really am quite worried by the reactions that people have towards this sort of thing!
As far as I'm aware, reading the enormous number of posts on this sort of thing, very few people that are interested in general/universal/flexible/modular systems give negative, nasty, despiriting, aggressive or offensive posts about Setting Specific games, or rules that only permit a single method of play, a single set of mechanics etc. I don't see the screaming out things like restrictive, retentive, limited, short sighted, inhibitive, contrictive, repressed rules or that.
Oh no, not much at all, yet hose that support such games and systems seem to have little problem doing such to us.
Why?
Actually, don't bother!
I'll ask specific questions about specific problems, issues or ideas, and say * to the rest, as people are blatantly biased and non-constructive towards this sort of thing.
So, in future, I will state that the I.N.I. system is a post apocolyptic setting with both archaic & near futuristic technology, Psionics, Arcane, Faith and Conjuration magics, Cybernetics, Netware, Bionics, Bio-genetics, vehicles, Animals, Mechanised units, and a very broad scope of skills.....and hopefully the majority of you will all respond as if the system is indead setting specific and not bash at me.
On a final note, I would like to thank all of you for posting, all comments are read and taken in, (hell, even if I don't like it, theres a use for it!), yet would very much like to thank those that offered insight, defence and explanatory posts, as these were the most useful kind.
Thank you all,
Autocrat!
Quote from: AutocratSo, in future, I will state that the I.N.I. system is a post apocolyptic setting with both archaic & near futuristic technology, Psionics, Arcane, Faith and Conjuration magics, Cybernetics, Netware, Bionics, Bio-genetics, vehicles, Animals, Mechanised units, and a very broad scope of skills.....
That's a good one, it made me laugh!