New Generic Roleplaying System

[F. Scott Banks]

Well, the world certainly doesn't need another generic RPG, but I need to make one in order to design future games.  I'm not trying to do what others have done before.  This isn't the D&D or GURPS killer.  This is simply a homebrew system that allows me to design and play the types of games I want to play in the type of way I like to play them.

I could run down the long list of RPG's this system is intended to support, but it's simpler to just design the core ruleset rather than running the same rules over for review every couple months or so.  That way, it'll be easier for the community to provide support and the new games will need less explaining on my part.

[Vulpinoid]

There are people who will fight both sides of this argument.

Some will say "Work on a generic set of rules so that you can focus on a specific range of settings later."

Others will say "Clearly define and tailor each set of rules to each setting so that the rules give a more immersive experience into the setting that you've devised."

It's like the old FORM vs FUNCTION discussion that gripped the industrial design community during it's birth in the earliest parts of the 20th century, then cascaded out through the rest of society to become a cliche.

Do you choose the style of the setting first when designing then tailor the rules to that?

Do you choose the core of the rules, then apply a gloss of surface texture and setting to make it all look nice?

I think you need a balance, and this goes back to the modular components I mentioned earlier.

If you have a good solid foundation, you can always add in the modular component that really give the setting it's tone and unique dynamics. These modular componets should be where all the quirky rules are placed, because some people will like these concepts and others will despise them. I like to think of it as a sliding scale from fundamentals to ephemera.

(The terms I've used below I've come up with on the fly to illustrate my point).

Fundamentals = The core parts of the system that everything else revolves around. A simple conflict resolution system, a character generation system and maybe an experience system.
Solids = Things that apply to most games, but are an expansion on the basic fundamentals. Combat or Social interactions as subclasses of conflict resolution, Overcoming wounds (or Health point/level regeneration), etc.
Liquids = Things that really start to narrow the focus of your game. A magic system, fear and morale mechanics, character goals and motivations, etc.
Gases = Very specific concept for a certain setting or play style. Specific mechanics for long term school-yard bullying, specific effects of poisons and diseases, vehicle combat rules, etc.
Ephemera = Non-mechanical flavour effects. These are the background details and colour/flavour text found throughout the books that give ideas on how certain things should be done. They are really designed to get the player in a certain frame of mind when in the game begins.

Plenty of people will argue where certain concepts sit on this sliding scale, but you should get my point. The higher up the list, the more integral is is to a generic system. The further down the list, the more focused and interesting these rules can become. In my opinion, a generic system should focus on the Fundamentals and Solids. Any optional rules should be in the Liquids and Gases (this includes modular components that are especially appropriate for specific setting types). Fundamentals are the essence of function and define the workings of the system at its most basic level; while ephemera are the essence of form and give the system it's memorable surface qualities.

I don't say one of these is worth more focus than the other, but rather that you need to consider all of the aspects of the design if you want a successful and coherent game. Too much focus on the Fundamental side gives a dry read that doesn't entice new players into the world. Too much focus on the Ephemera side gives a quirky setting with no real depth, you might play once but you may not want to try it again. A quick look through many of the home brew systems out there will show great examples of both these extremes.

Anyway...enough rant for now.

I hope these thought might have given you some ideas.

V

[F. Scott Banks]

Sorry about the delay.  It happens occasionally as I've got to actually apply all these ideas and then test them to make sure I'm doing it right.

I actually applied both theories to flesh out my ruleset V.  I came up with all the contested actions like combat and made a single ruleset for contested actions.  Then I came up with variant rules for specific types of conests from arguments to cooking competitions.  From that, I got my stats.

A little longer and we'll see if this works.  Once I'm satisfied it'll float, I'll put it up here to let you all put it through it's paces.

[F. Scott Banks]

Thanks for sticking with me.  I've got the die mechanic down.  It's very simple, utilizing a basic 2d10 roll because I like the probabilities and can build on it easily assuming that very high and very low rolls are rare, while slightly above average rolls 11,12,13, are commonplace.  Granted, it's far from innovative, but it works.

The next thing that I'm having a hell of a time tying down are the character attributes.  I mentioned that when we're testing, we pretty much just make the character sheets we need for the adventure we're running.  Because I suck at complex die mechanics, the main focus was making sure that 1+1 always equalled 2...and keeping the die mechanics simple.  However, now that the numbers are obeying their human masters, we need to clean up them character sheets.

I'm trying to find a common thread among the actions I ask of the characters in the skills, talents, and feats they're given.  In general, there are three basic stats Speed, Body, and Mind, but different games break those general stats down in different ways.

Any ideas for all-purpose stats, or at least the ones I absolutely can't leave out like strength?  Until then, our method consists of coming up with as many skills as possible and tying them to common character attributes.  When we run out of skills, feats, spells, and abilities to assign, the we'll just look at which attributes are carrying most of the load and just cheat out the ones that don't quite fit.