What is system?

[Umberhulk]

Universal systems are relying on a reusable pattern much like a lot of computer programs do.  The setting and the mechanics are abstracted into different layers with this mind set.  That way you can easily "plug and play" different settings on top of the same reusable rule mechanics layer and potentially have rule mechanic componentized to reduce impact to other rule components when you make changes to one rule component.  The problem is that this really is a framework, not a system that does anything.  While this methodology is great for business software, it starts to feel bland for entertainment purposes like RPGs or even computer games (slap a new setting on the same 'ol First Person Shooter engine and you have a new "game", but really it still feels like Doom to me.)  
"Analog" game companies receive the same kind of reusability benefits in that they don't have to playtest a new setting as much using the a generic system, just the tweaks.  I believe this is another reason why you see the market flooded with d20 and GURPS material, because it is faster and cheaper to produce (along with the large fan bases).

[M. J. Young]

I have been sitting back and watching these seemingly indiscriminate swipes at "universal" games with some bemusement; it didn't seem right to take offense, but it does seem like most of you are saying that the objectives of such a system are fundamentally misguided.

That would be something of a blow to me.

However, I will recognize that all systems must make assumptions, and that includes universal, generic, multiversal, and composite systems.

Multiverser makes these assumptions.

[*]Players would rather not have their characters come to the end of their existence; whatever happens, the character must be allowed to continue.

[*]There must be some risk in play to give play meaning; if death is not the end, it still should be something. Using death as the end of the round, but not the end of the game, maintains this tension.

[*]Most gamers would like to play in many different kinds of game worlds, but don't have time to get to them all. If all different genres and settings could be incorporated into one game such that continuous play of the same game with the same characters would include as a feature the ability to experience many different kinds of worlds, that would be something most gamers would enjoy.

[*]Gamers have different interests in how games run and on what they focus. The game should adapt to the players; the more individually this can be done, the more enjoyable the game will be for each player. Thus if characters can adjust the detail in combat through their own character choices, they will enjoy combat more. Similarly, if they can focus on those aspects of a world or situation that appeal to them with minimal interference from others at the table, they will enjoy that more.

[*]Worlds and characters must be protected such that they remain true to what they purport to be; a mechanic that balances these effectively against each other can give the feeling to the players that they are still playing the same characters, but in different worlds. The rules themselves must change to adapt with the change of world, but do so smoothly.

[*]Some games are going to capture the nuances of their imagined reality better through their mechanics than any other system can. A game that can adapt other game systems to itself, such that its characters become characters in the other game system while in that setting can in a sense use its advantages.[/list:u]
Multiverser attempts to do these things--make it possible for player characters to enter any world. That is in part accomplished by allowing the rules to adapt by interfacing with the rules of other games.

I think I can give as an example the forthcoming Legends of Alyria game. There is an appendix in the rear which provides what we would call interfacing rules--not really conversion rules, because it's not really about how to play Alyria with Multiverser mechanics. Rather, it's about how to bring Multiverser characters into Alyria and use Alyria as part of a continuing Multiverser campaign. Alyria does things Multiverser, alone, could not; but in a sense, because Multiverser includes this interfacing aspect, Multiverser players can take their characters into Alyria, play under Legends of Alyria rules, and continue beyond that into other worlds, equipped with such skills and devices as they may have acquired while there.

Thus I think Multiverser really can provide "play in any world", because it has this as part of its basic rules structure. That requires a certain amount of adaptation on the part of the referee (except in those cases in which such an interface is provided at the courtesy of the publisher), but then this would not be more work than merely picking up and playing Alyria, and it fits into your ongoing campaign.

I'm a strong supporter of games built for what they do. I don't think that negates the value of universal games, as long it's understood what their objectives are as games.

--M. J. Young

[coxcomb]

I have been sitting back and watching these seemingly indiscriminate swipes at "universal" games with some bemusement; it didn't seem right to take offense, but it does seem like most of you are saying that the objectives of such a system are fundamentally misguided.

As I tried to say earlier, this thread was not intended to be a diss or attack on universal systems. Re-reading my last post, I am sad to see that what came out sounded like "universal systems are bad", which isn't what I wanted to say (*sigh* e-communication is such a flawed medium).

Obviously, every system is diferent. My comments about the assumptions of "universal" systems are only true for the universal systems with which I am familiar (mainly HERO and GURPS--both of which I like, while admitting that they have flaws).

Perhaps we should stop using "universal" as a label for all games with scopes that range beyond a single genre. Though I do not have personal experience with Multiverser, it is obvious from what you're saying that it is as different from Hero as D&D is from Trollbabe.

Thank you for making good points, M. J. I am now officially intrigued about Multiverser!

[W. Don]

Hi all,

I have been sitting back and watching these seemingly indiscriminate swipes at "universal" games with some bemusement; it didn't seem right to take offense, but it does seem like most of you are saying that the objectives of such a system are fundamentally misguided.

My apologies for anyone who felt like I was in some way dissing the whole universal system mindset. Nothing of the sort was intended. I'd like to clarify my post, if I may:

What I was relating was that most of the disussion I've seen about generic RPGs was telling me that a lot of folks who choose them seek to use them for some specific type of game. A lot of them were saying, "I want this kind of game now. And I'll use these these rules because they fit," not so much "... I'll use these rules because they're generic."

If there's anything in this thread that this observation supports, it's when coxcomb says:

I think the real fallacy of universal games is the assumption that having to fill in the details for every game is easier than just using another game.

Perhaps we should stop using "universal" as a label for all games with scopes that range beyond a single genre. Though I do not have personal experience with Multiverser, it is obvious from what you're saying that it is as different from Hero as D&D is from Trollbabe.

Yes. From what little I know of Multiverser ( -- thanks for the run-through, M.J.! --) it isn't something I'd classify as universal. That's one issue in this thread I think. There hasn't been a consensus about what constitutes a universal system. If it means genre-free or genre-adaptable, then something like Paladin would quallify just as well.

- W.

[Tomas HVM]

As far as I know, what may be called "universal games" are not universal as games, but as conflict systems. A traditional conflict system may very well be constructed to cater for multiple genres. Then again; you'd have to make the setting for each genre, and give some observations on method, to make the genre come alive with the game. The effort necessary to make each setting come alive within the game, by both gamesmith and gamer, constitutes such an effort that you may consider it an individual game. If not taken seriously, you will probably make multisetting games without genre specifics, playing the same dramatic content in each and every setting. That makes for multiflavoured games, and not much more.

As for enjoying games with multiple genres/settings included; I tried Rifts, and found it tedious. I've enjoyed different sessions of GURPS, but don't expect to enjoy playing the same character as a fantasy hero, a space opera pilot, a superhero, etc.

I disagree on two of the points made  by M.J.Young, not as assumtions made by Multiverser, of course, but as anything like general observations or design principles.

---> The assumption that "most gamers" will enjoy multisetting is not generally true, in my view. It may apply to a fair share of players, and may very well be an effective sales-argument for a game. However; I see dangers to the use of this assumption in game design.

I guess the main problem with multisettings, if part of one campaign, is for the setting to easily loose it's significance to the character. Such a game has to deal with characters  not bound by family, culture or time. I'm one gamer and gamesmith hooked on the hooks inherent in such relations, and I expect most gamers are. I think most players find their engagement limited, when playing characters perpetually adrift.

---> The assumption that "the game should adapt" to the players, is an assumtion many gamesmiths have tried to live by, and as a consequence made them loose the aim on their design goals. I can imagine that having it as a design goal in itself, would be different, but fear that many gamesmiths will try to adapt such a goal, not seeing the obvious dangers in doing so. I expect most gamesmiths to dig their own grave by choosing such a design goal.

I still think M.J.Young has an interesting listing of the qualities found in universal systems, and as assumptions made by this particular game; Mulitverser, it certainly rattles my curiousity.

[coxcomb]

---> The assumption that "the game should adapt" to the players, is an assumtion many gamesmiths have tried to live by, and as a consequence made them loose the aim on their design goals. I can imagine that having it as a design goal in itself, would be different, but fear that many gamesmiths will try to adapt such a goal, not seeing the obvious dangers in doing so. I expect most gamesmiths to dig their own grave by choosing such a design goal.

BINGO! This is exactly the point I was trying to make with this thread in the first place!

Let me see if I can be more clear about it...

If you are designing a board game, you have to decide for whom you are making the game. What is your target audience. Once you make that decision, you necessarily limiting the scope of the game to that audience. You make the rules to fit them, knowing full well that other types of players won't be interested no matter what you do. For example, if you make a game that is almost entirely strategic, that takes four hours to play, and has lots of complicated bits, you know that you are only going to appeal to hardcore strategy gamer types. You aren't going to get Ma and Pa to play the game.

The same is true with almost every other kind of design. When you design a software program, you have to know your audience. When you write a novel, you have to know your audience.

Thing is, role-playing gamers have long been lumped together as a single, unified audience. As Ron and others have been saying for years, this assumption is wrong: not all roleplayers are the same.

Game designers need to realize and come to terms with this. We need to acknowledge that our game is for a specific type of player, define that type, and go without looking back. To not do so is a recipe for incoherence, or at the very least confusion.

Also, because different games are aiming at certain types of play, the rules need to tell the reader how to play that way.

[Tomas HVM]

When you design a software program, you have to know your audience. When you write a novel, you have to know your audience.
...
We need to acknowledge that our game is for a specific type of player, define that type, and go without looking back. To not do so is a recipe for incoherence, or at the very least confusion.

I agree with you in some of this, but have a problem with your focus on the need to "define" a target player. To make such a definition, is not what needs to be foremost in the mind of a game designer. Mostly this will be done automatically, by the preferences of the designer himself. As a designer you may rely solely upon your own instinct for a good game.

What you need to realize is your true design goals, and how to pursue them. And you need to acknowledge that your game is specific, wrought to make one kind of drama, to facilitate drama within one kind of genre, or to create a new drama/genre specific for the game. To do this, a game designer need to put his experiences aside for a while. He need to disregard the standard solutions to similar challenges, and work it out for himself. This needs to be done, in order to make his ideas sprout and blossom, and make the foundation for a new game.

Tis but the foundations though. You need to let these ideas meet the brunt of your experience too, but at a later stage in the process. First you need to have ideas blossoming, then you need to substanciate them in some form, and only then is it time to look at your work with critical eyes. It is in the critical stage that your experience must be applied, including any knowledge you have of what players are like, and how/if they would like to play the game.

The process should go like this:
- Ideas
- Creation
- Critics
Over and over again, should this prosess turn, until a new game is formed.

To underline how important the three stages are in the process, I may say that the third stage; critic, is the only one you may skip. The ideas and creation is the material stages of this process. The ideas is the offspring of it all, and lay the directions and foundations for it. The creation is the core, the stage where the game is created, where your abilities as a designer is tested to the brink of tediousness.

Still; the critic is too much at the steering wheel with many game designers. They censor themselves from the beginning. By doing this, they often kill their ideas before they reach maturity. The critical stanca also hamper their writing abilities, making their descriptions dull and unimaginative. The really original ideas of such a designer, those capable of being the basis of a really great game, seldom develop into anything that may withstand the pressure of tradition. The game designer loose sight of his design goals, as far as he had any. The game is never finished, or it is published without much to recommend it.

Such a game designer will writhe in the clutches of tradition, designing but vague copies of old games, and slowly wither away into oblivion. To create a game is time consuming, it demand great amounts of creative energy. The time and energy of such a designer is wasted, unless he learn from the experience, and awaken to new insights on how to manage his artictic genius. Until then, all gamers, all over the world, may mourn the loss of his great games, never to be created.

[coxcomb]

The process should go like this:
- Ideas
- Creation
- Critics
Over and over again, should this prosess turn, until a new game is formed.

I don't think I am disagreeing with this at all.

My point, and I do have one somewhere, is that the process should go like this:

1.) Realize that gamers are not all the same, and you will never please all of them.

2.) Decide on the goals for your game (which, I assert, also defines your audience)

3.) Ideas / Creation / Critique process as you listed

4.) Write rules (making certain to clarify the whole system, not just character creation, resolution, and rewards).

[John Kim]

  My point, and I do have one somewhere, is that the process should go like this:

1.) Realize that gamers are not all the same, and you will never please all of them.
2.) Decide on the goals for your game (which, I assert, also defines your audience)
3.) Ideas / Creation / Critique process as you listed
4.) Write rules (making certain to clarify the whole system, not just character creation, resolution, and rewards).

While that can work, I think there is also an iterative process which is less theory-based.  It goes like:

1) Write rules based on some random idea you have
2) See who likes it -- i.e. your "core audience" -- and observe how they play
3) Revise rules to please your core audience
4) Repeat #2 and #3

Now, there are potential flaws in this, but there are potential flaws in any method.  It's at least reasonable and I think it fits.  Even though it is a "universal system", that doesn't mean that BESM (say) doesn't have a core audience which it is interested in pleasing.

[Ben O'Neal]

1) Write rules based on some random idea you have
2) See who likes it -- i.e. your "core audience" -- and observe how they play
3) Revise rules to please your core audience
4) Repeat #2 and #3

Now, there are potential flaws in this, but there are potential flaws in any method. It's at least reasonable and I think it fits. Even though it is a "universal system", that doesn't mean that BESM (say) doesn't have a core audience which it is interested in pleasing.

Yeah, I tend to think that there's nothing wrong with a game that tries to cover everything, but there is a problem with a game that tries to please everyone. The first is really hard (so focusing results in a better game), the second is impossible.

I also might suggest that your "core audience" can be yourself, simply because it is improbable that no-one else in the world will be anything like you. An artist paints a picture that they like, not that other people like (I'm talking real artists, the poor unknown, not the advertisers), and the result is that invariably some other people like it and some don't. Then you can retroactively declare that you painted it for your audience if you want to.

-Ben

[Tomas HVM]

Oops, got me all worked up again!

Started to elaborate on the creative process, and ended up doing an full fledged lecture on it. I'll turn it over to Ron for consideration when it is finished. I hope he will be kind enough to publish it here.