Defining the different Verses

[Sylus Thane]

Over the last couple of days, especially after the various discussions on defining the differences between the different game engines, I think I have come up with a reasonable set of terms that people could apply to possibly eliminate confusion when we try and define what type of rules engine or overall game we have designed. I will only put in examples of games where I feel they are appropriate and I have a good working knowledge of them.

First off lemme start with the simplest (in my opinion).

#1 Generic- these in my opinion are the simplest of games. They are merely a set a of general rules that with a few tweaks can be applied to any setting. In general there is no setting provided by the designer.

A good example of a generic game would be Fudge

#2 Universal- Universal in my opinion goes one step beyond generic in that  it is designed with the intent that it requires less tweaks to play any type of game and the designer provides one or many settings to be used with the rules.

A good example of Universal would be Gurps or Palladium. I also see D20 steadily if not already becoming firmly entrenched in this way.

#3 Universe- these would be your standard one rules set for one setting type of games.

Good examples would be Cyberpunk, Vampire and Werewolf. I include these latter two as they overall fulfill the requirements for the supernatal genre. There are of course many other examples, most RPG's fall into this category.

#4 Omniverse- this is a rather special type in which all genres are possible and at the same time inner working. All possible rules are included as well as with a omniversal setting.

The prime example of this type of game would be Rifts.

And #5 Multiverse- This form of rules set is similar to the Omniverse but with some distinct differences. Instead of all things being possible they are instead seperated out as to be playable either seperately or combined. Settings are provided in such a way as to be able to have easily intertwined such as in a timeline or happening interdependent of one another or in conjunction.

I don't know of any prime examples of this other than what I am trying to do with my game Frontier. If anyone knows of any I wouldn't greatly like to know.

Now I would like to know if people feel if this a reasonable means of defining the various styles of game engines or have any views as to whether the definitions can be refined. As well as any other examples of games as they may fit within the definitions. My hope is that we on the forum can help expand our glossary of definitions beyond how they apply to GNS so that we can more easily define what it is we are doing to each other.

Sylus

[Mike Holmes]

Um, I think the GNS definitions are just fine.

BTW, the game Multiverser, by our own MJ Young, would be, I think, the best example of what you refer to as an Omniverse sort of game. Hmmm, that's odd. And I supose TORG would be Omniversal, sorta.

I'm not getting at all the difference in your definitions between Omniverse, and Multiverse. They seem the same to me.

Mike

[Sylus Thane]

I'm not getting at all the difference in your definitions between Omniverse, and Multiverse. They seem the same to me.

I guess, for me anyway, the difference would be that in an Omniverse all things are assumed to coexist at the same time and be thoroughly aware of the others existence. Whereas in a Multiverse game they would be coexistent yet seperate, not aware of nor nescessarily needing to be aware of the others existence in order to play.

For example, in a Rifts game I have all things available to me in which I may want to play, from Vampires to Technomages, CyberKnights and Glitterboys. But, should I work within the setting I cannot reasonable exclude one of them as they are all considered to exist at the same time within the same setting. Whereas in a Multiverse game I would have all the same things available to me but the setting would not dictate to me which I include as the settings provided are considered to be coexistent but not interdependent. It is in this way that I could with a Multiverse play vampires in space if I so desired or could mix and match any of the genre styles as I saw fit. Hopefully this explains it a little bit better.

Um, I think the GNS definitions are just fine.

I have no problems with the definitions within the GNS  but do believe they could be expanded on to provide working definitions beyond just how people play or how they desire to play but to also include types of game mechanic and setting styles.

Sylus

[Shreyas Sampat]

This has absolutely nothing to do with GNS; it's an attempt to categorize a game's relationship to Color (if I'm using Color correctly.)

Sylus, i find that your terms resemble each other a great deal, and I fear they're prone to being confused.  A more unified presentation might look like:

Generic: This characterizes games that are expected to be Drifted to their application.
Universal: This characterizes games that propose to offer rules for any application.
Specific: These games are designed to apply to one application only.

I don't feel that you need the terms Multiverse and Omniverse at all.  They obfuscate rather than clarify.  They can both be folded into Universal.

[Le Joueur]

Generic: This characterizes games that are expected to be Drifted to their application.
Universal: This characterizes games that propose to offer rules for any application.
Specific: These games are designed to apply to one application only.[/list:u]

Can we add one more?

Transitional: Games that incorporate Drift, as a function of the rules, to any application.[/list:u]Fang Langford

[Mike Holmes]

That helps clarify the difference, Sylus. In that case, then Multiverser is a Multiverse game. Thank heavens for that.

Mike

[Sylus Thane]

This has absolutely nothing to do with GNS; it's an attempt to categorize a game's relationship to Color (if I'm using Color correctly.)

Here I would have to disagree, for whether you call it color, or flavor, setting or genre, I believe these things do effect GNS and how people percieve it.

Sylus, i find that your terms resemble each other a great deal, and I fear they're prone to being confused. A more unified presentation might look like:

Generic: This characterizes games that are expected to be Drifted to their application.
Universal: This characterizes games that propose to offer rules for any application.
Specific: These games are designed to apply to one application only.

I don't feel that you need the terms Multiverse and Omniverse at all. They obfuscate rather than clarify. They can both be folded into Universal.

Although I would agree that they could and should be simplified, in my opinion what you propose may be a oversimplification. For in this discussion we already have a proposed need for

Can we add one more?
Transitional: Games that incorporate Drift, as a function of the rules, to any application.
Fang Langford

which would seem to be a nescessary type needing to be represented. Perhaps a means of simplifying the defintions could go like this:

Generic: This characterizes games that are expected to drift in their application.
Universal: This characterizes games that propose to offer rules for any application.
Specific: These games are designed to apply to one application only.
Transitional: Games that incorporate Drift as a function of the rules to any application.
Multiverse: Games that are designed to apply to any application either seperately or in combination. But not requiring the dependence of one on another.

Now in this set of definitions I would say that the Omniverse style could be found either within the Universal or Specific modes. It is in my opinion that it would be a combination of the two. I'm not sure if this would qualify it as requiring it's own seperate distinction or not. Perhaps it could be defined this way.

Omniverse: Games that provide rules in which to apply to all applications as a whole, each part being codependent on the others. Omniverses are most commonly a combination of Universal and Specific.

Either way I feel it is unique enough that it needs some form of distinction.

That helps clarify the difference, Sylus. In that case, then Multiverser is a Multiverse game. Thank heavens for that.

Mike

Glad to hear it. Hopefully it will start a trend.

Sylus

[M. J. Young]

I really am going to have to get hold of a copy of Rifts and give myself more than the cursory exposure I've had to it. It keeps coming up in comparison to Multiverser, and I keep trying to explain the differences. (I have the same problem with GURPS, but I can usually get to the heart of the differences there quickly.)

Omniverse: Games that provide rules in which to apply to all applications as a whole, each part being codependent on the others. Omniverses are most commonly a combination of Universal and Specific....

...it got me thinking. Perhaps games like Rifts are actually not generic or universal or multiversal at all; perhaps they are specific, as specific as D&D or Traveler or Call of Cthulu--but specific to a kind of world in which all things are possible, wandering around in the same universe.

I'm aware that in Rifts this world is somewhat splintered; but the fact remains that any character or creature is capable of wandering at will from one part of the world to another, that the magic, technology, and whatever else, all "work" throughout it (as I understand it).  Given enough time, one would expect the Rifts world to become homogenous. The rifts seem to be only a little more stringent than international borders.

So perhaps it's "Specific", but to an "all-in-one" setting.

To clarify concerning Multiverser (which I think is indeed what you mean by the use of the term "Multiverse"), it is supposed that all universes exist independently; thus any universe you could imagine is part of the game's collection of worlds. Some of these may be connected in particular ways, such as portals, but most are independent of each other. Player characters move from universe to universe, but generally do not have control over what universe is next (it happens when the character is killed, generally, and he comes to life in the new universe).

There is a balancing act between character integrity and world integrity that is performed by the Bias mechanic. In essence, this controls how much magic, technology, psionics, and body-based skill is available in a universe. This works in several ways which are simpler in play than they are described, but in essence a low bias makes some things in that area impossible and the rest difficult, and a higher bias makes many more things possible and everything easier. (Because of the two-number system for determining this, it's possible to have worlds in which everything is possible but very difficult, and worlds in which the player characters have access to abilities the locals don't.) There is nearly always some technology, some magic, some psionics, and some (usually a lot) body skill support in any universe, but in low biases these things become difficult enough that player characters are generally discouraged from using them, shifting instead to areas where the universe bias is higher. That is, you could use your blaster in a swords & sorcery world, but it's likely to miss, and if it jams you probably won't be able to clear it; you could use magic in a space world, but the list of possible skills is short, the probability of failure high, the likelihood that you're going to botch pretty significant, and the "advantages of a good blaster" rather evident. Thus player characters are able to carry skills and equipment into worlds in which they're not commonly found, but there are very few creatures able to do so, and the people of any one universe are unlikely to be aware that there are any other universes. (Player characters have been known to get themselves burned as witches or locked up for therapy when they try to explain who they are.)

I'd be glad to answer any questions through whatever medium you prefer. I see that my Yahoo! Pager identity is listed, but I never have that on unless I'm expecting someone to use it, so use one of the others first.

--M. J. Young

[Mark Johnson]

. Perhaps games like Rifts are actually not generic or universal or multiversal at all; perhaps they are specific, as specific as D&D or Traveler or Call of Cthulu--but specific to a kind of world in which all things are possible, wandering around in the same universe.

This topic had been touched on a little bit last month but I think the Dr Who roleplaying games also fall into this category.  Yes, any genre might be possible, but games are still clearly in the "Dr Who" universe.  A game session might be western, quasi-magical medieval, histroical, far future, alternate universe but it still is built around a kernel universe with it own tropes and exepctations.

Thanks,
Mark J