The Forge Archives

Quote from: No-oneOne system to rule them all
One system to find them
One system to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them.

Ok, what's up with generic RPGs? Don't take this as a trolling, I'm genuinely interested to listen to why people create generic RPGs and maybe most of all why people play it.

For example, if I have a really good setting... let's call it "x" why would I create it as a sourcebook to another game rather than my own? I can totally understand adaptions "Oh, I think this ruleset is cool, I want to use it for my setting so get the original author(s)'s permission and include their mechanics with a few adaptions so that they fit with my setting", but the things that are only a setting book to a generic game? No I don't understand it.

First someone buys the generic game, then they buy the setting book? It's one thing if the setting book is the adaption of some movie or some book.  That way people have a reason to pick it up. But if it's a setting for a generic game? I don't see it happening. Why pick up the generic game if you don't know of a setting you want to play with it? And why pick up a setting if you don't know the system?

Sure, there are a few explorers of system who will be interested, and despite everything there WILL be a few who want to check it out. But I'm thinking about the average person looking to buy a game.

Just the fact that it is a generic game system the setting is using is taking a risk: you have no idea what compromises had to be done when interfacing system with setting. Despite promising otherwise there is no way you can get around that there will be an interfacing process. Sometimes easier sometimes harder, but as a consumer you don't know which one it is.

Still, my argument mostly boils down to this:
Generic system - buy rules, then buy setting (or reverse)
System + setting - buy rules and get setting too.

If you really like some rules and really like another setting you can usually modify things yourself, usually there is no need for a mediator (as far as I can tell).

BUT, I must be wrong or why else would so many people be working on generic systems? Or?

Quote from: Pale FireI'm genuinely interested to listen to why people create generic RPGs and maybe most of all why people play it.

For example, if I have a really good setting...why would I create it as a sourcebook to another game rather than my own?

First someone buys the generic game, then they buy the setting book? ...I don't see it happening. Why pick up the generic game if you don't know of a setting you want to play with it? And why pick up a setting if you don't know the system?

Still, my argument mostly boils down to this:
Generic system - buy rules, then buy setting (or reverse)
System + setting - buy rules and get setting too.

If you really like some rules and really like another setting you can usually modify things yourself, usually there is no need for a mediator (as far as I can tell).

BUT, I must be wrong or why else would so many people be working on generic systems?

"You can modify things yourself...?"  First of all you seem to be forgetting that most people who buy these games aren't game designers.  GURPS makes a lot of scratch selling the setting separate from the system; so it isn't a completely worthless business model.

Personally, I'm not to keen on it either, but I do go for the generalist system idea.  Why?

Have you ever seen

Cast a Deadly Spell?  Fred Ward as a hardboiled detective in a totally twenties Hollywood noir setting, except...

Everyone uses magic instead of guns (well everyone except the central character).[/list:u]
Not only that but the magic reads right out of H. P. Lovecraft (who also lends the detective his name).[/list:u]There are other examples, but you get the point.  Here is a story incredibly steeped in one genre yet seamlessly incorporating elements from another.  Shadowrun is another example, cyberpunk with elves and dwarfs (well, the 'seamlessly' is arguable, but you get the point).  I change games often and don't care to write a new one each time.  (Are you particularly keen on how hard it is to write a game?)  'Regular gamers' are thought to not care to learn a new system all the time either (since they don't design); a generalist game lets them change their setting as often as they like, never needing to learn new rules.

If your asking about the d20 thing, I'd guess that there might be a lot of creators out there who only care about settings and don't want to try making a system.  Then there's the people who think they can 'ride the coattails' of d20 and profit like GURPS supplements do without developing their own system.  Finally, I expect that some are attracted to it as a 'cool new thing' or believe the hype about the world not needing any more systems.  They don't believe that their setting-books will sell the rulebook as far as I can tell; they expect the rules are ubiquitous.  Otherwise I don't know what.

Personally, I lean more toward the 'old Palladium model,' put out setting after setting

with the same rules each time, a single-package-deal.  We take it a step farther such that you can also get a 'shot glass setting' with as much Mechanix each pointing at the bigger books.  Everything but the novelties and supports are self-contained.  The 'big books' carry the instructions on how to fuse your own genres per Cast a Deadly Spell or Shadowrun.

I chose to write a generalist system so that I could do it once and do it right.  After that I have something I can always fall back on (and I expect to do a lot of gaming in the 'old folks home').  And well, I think it can be done.

Fang Langford

p. s. Does that make d20's originator the Sauron of game designers?

[quote="Pale Fire]Ok, what's up with generic RPGs? Don't take this as a trolling, I'm genuinely interested to listen to why people create generic RPGs and maybe most of all why people play it.[/quote]
I found a really old thread here where Ron gave some thoughts on generic/universal RPGs and coined the term generalist:

QuoteGENERALIST.
If a system is rather good at accomplishing certain role-playing priorities, it seems perfectly reasonable to associate that system with a variety of settings that are themselves consistent with those priorities. Those role-playing priorities can than be satisfied for a wider variety of players, although still within the boundaries of the game's principles. This is what I'll call "generalist" - it is still highly specific in terms of the principles of design, but it's officially applied to a variety of settings

I rather like this term, if only to keeep it clear what we talk about here in terms of genralist design vs. what is typically thought of when one says "universal/generic RPG."

A lot of people seem to thing that generic (note the term I use) is a holy grail of sorts. They may have an idea for a game about spell weilding, genetically enhance robots that fight crime, but if the system can be applied to any possible, no matter how convoluted idea, then this make the game "better." I think that part of the problem with this idea is that very few people will actually use this feature of the system. That is, d20 is supposedly universal, but I'll bet most people who play it are playing D&D or a fantasy equivalent.

I'm not sure why this feature is so desirable when it won't be used so much. I guess it's like endless monster lists. It's nice it have if you want it even though you'll probably never, ever make use of it. One other feature that some think is attractive about all of this, which is also rarely used is the easy of conversion from one setting to another. Yes, it's nice to know you can move your 1920's-era gangster charaters to an intergalactic starship with very little effort, but how often does that happen?

And this is why people play such games, for the most part, from what I have seen. The above adds an extra level of appeal that may convince them to play generic game X over non-generic game Y with their opinions of either set of mechanics being equal.

I guess there's nothing wrong with this so long as they enjoy what they're doing, but it's like the ethernet port on my computer. What the hell am I ever going to use it for? The only difference is that the ethernet port was not a selling point.

Another such myth of generic systems is that it's easier for people to learn one system and then play many games than to learn a different system for every game. Part of this thinking seems to be exstended from comptuer compatability. Yeah, running a Mac program on your Windows machine will yield disappointment, but RPGs are not like that at all. I think people can learn many, many different systems without too much trouble and enjoy it. In fact, I daresay that it is *better* if people learn different systems for different games. It gives each game a distinct flavor, apart from any setting information or artwork in the book, so the players will unconciously modify their playing style to match the game being played. That is, playing a game like, oh let's say Little Fears requires a certain mode of play and certain amount of expectation, both from the game and each individual player. The players realise this expectation from the GM saying "Hey, let's play Little Fears" and this get reinforce when they make use of the rules of Little Fears in play. Convert Little Fears to d20 and the players will probaly start to slide, unconsciously, into their old D&D habbits, and this could include the GM, until they're basically just playing D&D again.

The appeal of writing a setting book for an existing system is, naturally, that you don't have to write the system yourself. Writing a game is a lot of work and the mechanics require a whole hellova lotta work, writing, playtesting, rewriting, playtest, repeat. It can take years to get a system the way you want it. Or you could take an existing game, preferably with a free or open license and such, add some necessary rules patches and you're good to go.

I guess it's a matter of how much effort you're willing to expend, but I've rambled enough on the subject.

IMO a major appeal to the "buy system, then buy setting module" approach is that it saves time and money.

Since the above statement exactly contradicts your position, I guess some explanation is in order. :)

I'll use GURPS as an example, since in my view it's the poster child for the system + sourcebook model.

I purchase my GURPS Basic Set book.  (BTW, you may or may not realize that the GURPS Basic Set is actually a full, playable system, with weapon information and equipment lists for various settings and tech levels, as well as magic and psionics rules.)  With my spiffy new book, I play GURPS, learning the system as I go.  

Then I decide I want to try out gaming in Imperial Rome.  I could go and buy FVLMINATA for 30 bucks, and learn a completely new system, or I could spend 20 bucks on GURPS Rome and continue to use GURPS.  Then six months later I decide I want to set a game in the orient.  Do I buy L5R?  Or do I grab the GURPS Japan book?.  Or a fantasy world - D&D, or GURPS Fantasy?  Martial Arts gaming - Feng Shui, or GURPS Martial Arts?  Horror gaming - CoC, or GURPS Horror?  And so on.

That's the basic philosophy of GURPS - it really is a pretty flexible system, and while it may not be perfectly coupled with each and every setting, it can do an adequate job with many of them, and eases the burden of learning a new system when you switch campaign worlds.  Also, GURPS sourcebooks are often cheaper than complete RPG books.

(Incidentally, it's interesting to note that GURPS has lately been drifting away from that model with releases like DiscWorld, WWII, Transhuman Space, Conspiracy X, Hellboy, etc.  These games all come with the "Powered By GURPS" logo and are (supposedly) playable without using any other GURPS books.)

As to why an individual (such as myself) would spend time creating their own generic system, for me the answer is pretty simple.  I want my game to be just exactly right for ME.  I want a tool I can use and reuse that is tailored to my exacting requirements as a GM.  While I'm running a fantasy game right now, I anticipate doing some games in (very) different settings, and if I can take my custom-made perfect Gamemastering tool with me to a new setting, I'm happier than if I'm required to learn the nuances of a new system on top of getting my brain wrapped around a new setting.  Basically, it boils down to being lazy, I guess.

Hope my perspective on this has been helpful...
Ethan

Hi everyone,

Eric, tell me if I'm taking this too far toward the business angle of things, rather than design/play issues.

My thoughts on GURPS in particular are based on my observation that many, many role-players buy and use the setting/source books regularly, but they do not play GURPS. It's led me to think that GURPS-as-a-game is actually not particularly effective or popular as such; what's led to SJG's rep and success is the line of supplements ... or to call them what they really are, the line of reference encyclopedias.

This is neither a good nor bad thing, but, just in case, I'd like to circumvent the possibility of getting into a "why GURPS is so successful as a game" discussion when there's little or no evidence that it is.

That successful line-of-encyclopedias has created a kind of monetary tradition among retailers and RPG customers: "Order more GURPS. Buy more GURPS." Again, not a bad thing; this is commerce for a desirable product, not brainwashing ... but it is commerce, which means consumer values can be historically "fixed" and establish a product in the three-tier matrix of success. Let me clarify: it means that many retailers will order the next GURPS book sight unseen and without extreme promotion. That, I think, explains part of why it appears to be an enduring company/game in the diversity of RPGs.

So how about this type of game, itself? (Jack, thanks for dredging up that quote, 'cause it's exactly the foundation for what we're talking about.) We've got EABA, JAGS, Pocket Universe, perhaps Multiverser (although it's "not like the others" in some ways), and Fudge (again with a couple tweaks there). I'm not counting what I wrote off as "GURPS knockoffs" in my essay, which are generally nothing more than trading out the 3d6 for a d10 or something like that.

But really, that's not many, is it? Granted, a lot of people seem to want to make such games (see knockoffs), but not a whole lot of them seem to be available. Maybe it's not such a groundswell/demand after all.

Best,
Ron

How does d20 fit into this?  While not promoted the way GURPS was/is its certainly been used for everything recently...D&D, Starwars, Cthulhu, supers, Wierd, modern, others I'm forgetting.

One could argue that d20 is a generic/universal system and if included on the list with JAGS et.al. would certainly seem to skew the results back to a "ground swell" condition.

Hi Ralph,

Right, in all particulars. The role of D&D within D20, though, shouldn't be overlooked. It's definitely an effective way to combine the "worlds upon worlds" market with the "D&D dammit" market. TSR had tried to do that in-house in the late 80s-through-mid-90s, and it was a horrific, bankrupting bust. D20 is a way to do it without ... well, without paying for it.

Best,
Ron

I can tell you why we like 'em We made JAGS (Just Another Gaming System) to do some things differently than GURPS or Hero--but we have a real appreciation for "generalist" systems (I perfer the term universal--but hey ... ).

1. Read the three examples of play I have in the Actual Play column. Note: for none of them was there any indication of the exact genre that we'd be facing. It wasn't the Unknown Armies universe. It wasn't the Cthulhu Mythos. It was straight up modern-day wierdness.

I've played games where the characters started in a normal world and became supers (with the emergence of supers). This was a surprise to the PC's.

How can you have surprises in genre if the system is a lock-in? If I want to start a fantasy world and have the players find out they're characters in a Massive Multi-Player Online AI-Engine--and then exit the simulation downloading into real bodies and playing there, how can I handle the transition to the real world if I'm using a system that's dedicated to solely handling the specifics of the fantasy universe?

2. If a generic system (with rule-mods but not overhauls) meets the "expectation of reality" of all or most of the worlds you play in, you get a huge advantage to using it in other genres.  I like the wacky universe of Gamma World--but today I'd be disappointed with the way it would play out ("The target, a normal Pure Strain Human, is now bristeling with arrows stuck in his body. He scowls at you.")

If you choose a game where the specific genre rules are tightly focused and something happens to change the focus of the game, what do you do? In a generic system the odds that the new focus will be pretty well supported are higher than in a focused system.

3. I'm not in the "if I play Little Fears in D20 I'll slide back to playing D&D" camp. It's contrary to my experience. I mean, if the system you choose has no way to distinguish an 8 year old from an 18 year old, you have a problem--but we said D20, right? Not D&D. If they had special rules to focus on low stats (say you roll 2d6 for checks that are age-appropriate and ... oh hell I don't play it--but assuming the system would work) I don't think the "taint" of D20 would overcome the source material.

On the other hand if you want to take military brats armed with misappropriated heavy weapons into closet land for some closet-land asskicking (assuming that the heavy weapons would work in Closet Land which is a modification right there--but bear with me: it's WAY not Little Fears--but my first Little Fears scenario was to take place on a military base ... and I started thinking what if ... ) then you either need to modify the system out of all porportion ... or reach for another one.

4. If you look at RPG.net you'll find that an awful lot of people do mention GURPS in their top 5 games. These people are distinct from those who say "I buy the books but don't play."  The GURPS msg boards are super-heavily trafficed on usenet and our GURPS module conversions have gotten a LOT of downloads.

So Ron, I think people are playing GURPS--and a lot of them. Hero 5th Edition was met with some fanfare as well--and it's "not just for champions any more."

5. I'm all for specific rules for the setting--but let's say I want to play in Aljamar (SP?) Over the Edge's uber-weird island: what special rules do I need to enhance the setting? What do I need to "enhance the mood?"  Any *specific* rule that works for you might now work for me. Letting the group decide some of that on their own is (IMO) a good thing.

-Marco
[ JAGS is Just Another Gaming System. It's available at:
http://jagsgame.dyndns.org

Marco makes some good points. Mostly generalist games are useful for doing odd games that have no system. Assuming I don't want to make up a system every time I run something like that, I can just use a generalist game, and usually be successful. Also, there are bad systems out there. I like to replace bad systems with generalist ones as an improvement (as in GURPS Traveller, which I currently play).

I'll stand by this as a valid use for such games. And as such there is a place for them, IMO.

As far as GURPS, I think it is played a lot, and played successfully. This is due, I think, not to the effectiveness of the system so much as the effectiveness of the reference materials that they do provide. These supplements, while usable in other systems are easiest to use with GURPS (thi is not to say that they don't get used with other systems, but that they also get used with GURPS as well). So, like d20 is supported by D&D, GURPS is supported by it's supplements, which keep play afloat.

And it does support a particular style that works well for some players. It further works even better when modified, which a lot of people do. This counts for play of the title at least if not technically "successful" play of the rules as written.

Hero System gets even more successful play, though it could be argued that this is precisely because it's less generalist than GURPS.

Mike

Of course, depending on how you spin the semantics you could describe "FUDGE" as a generic RPG, and that changes to fit the setting rather than vice versa.

Quote from: Jack Spencer, Jr.One other feature that some think is attractive about all of this, which is also rarely used is the easy of conversion from one setting to another. Yes, it's nice to know you can move your 1920's-era gangster charaters to an intergalactic starship with very little effort, but how often does that happen?

Quote from: Ron Edwards, emphasis added,We've got EABA, JAGS, Pocket Universe, perhaps Multiverser (although it's "not like the others" in some ways), and Fudge (again with a couple tweaks there).a

I think there were a couple of factors behind the impetus to create Multiverser; as to whether this is the same sort of game as under discussion is debatable, as Ron suggests--I tend to say that it's universal, not generic, and distinguish those as running every world versus running any world. If that doesn't make sense, maybe it will in a moment.

One factor that mattered to us is that we liked playing lots of different settings. But that usually meant someone had to find the time to learn the game mechanics adequately to run a new game, and (particularly as we didn't start playing until after college) that often meant it would be several weeks before they had enough time to get up to speed, plus most of the first game night creating characters and bringing the players up to speed (who did not have time to read the books also). A new game setting became a significant investment in time because it also involved a new game system. With Multiverser, if play goes that way I can do three or four settings in a night, with the system shifting to accommodate play in the new world, just as easily as I can run one extended adventure for weeks or months. It appealed to our desire to play lots of different worlds. (Also, because of interfacing with other games, it allowed us to drop into those other games fairly fluidly on those occasions on which a particular game appealed to us and someone had time to learn it.)

The other factor that sticks in my mind is that despite liking to play many different games, we had a fondness for our characters. When you pick up a character who is supposed to live a couple of millennia, or even one who is expected to live a couple of decades, and you tell part of his story, you (or at least I) often find yourself asking, "and what happened after that?" Multiverser let us create continuing stories around the same characters. Jack asked how often it happens that people take characters from one genre to another. We do it all the time. It is, in a sense, how the game is played, why the game is enjoyed. In the forum game I'm running--
--Eric started in a secluded valley in an otherwise destroyed world where monks taught him psionic abilities; then he found himself in The Postman (by agreement, we had several players do this world independently at the same time) where he used guerilla tactics to terrorize and then kill Bethlehem; then he was in Philadelphia in a world similar to the World of Darkness game, where David joined him; and now he's in Blake's 7 without Blake (although he doesn't know it yet, so don't tell him).
--David started in The Postman, but he escaped Bethlehem's army and attempted to raise support for a restored United States; from there, he went to a valley very like the one in which Eric started; after learning much there, he joined Eric in Philadelphia, where he's still fighting vampires after Eric left.
--Graeme also started in The Postman, and took the tactic of surreptitiously bringing down Bethlehem's power from within, sowing the seeds of discontent until the troops rose up and overthrew the leadership, and he's still in that world, although he has since traveled by his own zepellin to Vancouver, where he's working on wooden ships.
--Shawn, our newest arrival, started on a cargo ship on a route through space, where he's taken a job as a medic but seen some action fighting pirates, among other adventures.

In the midst of this, since turnabout is fair play, Eric has started running a game for me. I started on another planet in the future of this world, where there was a lot of nostalgia for the old twentieth century; I'm now in a medieval princedom where there is a lot of magic and a tension between old feudal ways and rising modernization.

So it isn't exactly that I can use the same rules for any world; it's that I can carry the same characters from one world to another, play all kinds of games with all kinds of stories and conflicts and ideas, and never have to wonder about the characters of the games that were left unfinished.

That obviously doesn't apply to all generic or universal games; but it is what most Multiverser players enjoy.

Quote from: A moment ago II tend to say that it's universal, not generic, and distinguish those as running every world versus running any world. If that doesn't make sense, maybe it will in a moment.

With GURPS, the normal use is to create characters for one world or another world, and use the same game engine to run whatever world you want to play. The characters are tailored for one world, and everything takes place there. That's what I mean by "any", and that's how I understand "generic".

With Multiverser, the normal use is to create characters who will play in world after world, allowing them to carry skills and equipment with them and to use these things in and adapt themselves to the parameters of the new situation. That's what I mean by "every", and that's how I understand "universal".

Thanks for your time.

--M. J. Young

Quote
M. J. Young wrote:
                 One factor that mattered to us is that we liked playing lots of different settings. But that usually meant someone had to find the time to learn the game mechanics adequately to run a new game,

(snipped)

A new game setting became a significant investment in time because it also involved a new game system.  With Multiverser, if play goes that way I can do three or four settings in a night, with the system shifting to accommodate play in the new world, just as easily as I can run one extended adventure for weeks or months. It appealed to our desire to play lots of different worlds. (Also, because of interfacing with other games, it allowed us to drop into those other games fairly fluidly on those occasions on which a particular game appealed to us and someone had time to learn it.)

The other factor that sticks in my mind is that despite liking to play many different games, we had a fondness for our characters. When you pick up a character who is supposed to live a couple of millennia, or even one who is expected to live a couple of decades, and you tell part of his story, you (or at least I) often find yourself asking, "and what happened after that?" Multiverser let us create continuing stories around the same characters.

Wow, M.J.  That sounds like you guys thought of Dreamwalker years before we even did.  :)  Isn't it funny how almost the exact same design goals can lead to two totally different products?  

To stay on topic, I have to echo the sentiment that players get to feel comfortable with a particular system and any transition from one genre/setting/game to the next is easier to do if the same system is used.  I'll cite WW as a personal example.  I have two players that started playing VtM and got to know the rules really well.  They had never playes anything else.  At the urging of a few other players, we briefly tried a switch to AD&D 2E but the VtM players were completely befuddled to the point of frustration by which dice to roll and when to roll them, what a saving throw was, etc.  My solution was to have them create mortals a la Storyteller rules and then I fudged a few things here and there (usually in the magic department) to run through some D&D adventures.  

Anyway, what I am getting at is that the same players later picked up Werewolf, Changeling and even Wraith with no problems and that was because all of those games relied on the same system they were familiar/comfortable with.

So I think the reason generic or universal systems are popular is because some people will be more comfortable with say d20, while others will take a liking to GURPS, others to JAGS, etc.  

Pete


EDITED to fix some really crappy formatting and to add that in some cases, a system _must_ be universal to wrap around the concept of the game in question---take Multiverser, Dreamwalker, Feng Shui(?), Rifts(?) TORG(?) and other multi-genre games.  I almost think these games are different than what you are asking about, though.

ok, my thoughts on the topic of generalist, generic, and universal systems.

first, economic issues such as Ron mentions certainly seem to be involved; so are the issues Fang Langford mentions about genre mixing. if you do not want to play one of the settings currently being marketed as complete stand-alone game systems, but you aren't a game designer, what are you going to do? the answer is "get a system that covers as many settings as possible and add one or two details to get the setting you want."

I will confess: I played a lot of GURPS. I started with D&D, shifted to AD&D and The Fantasy Trip, toyed with CoC/Stormbringer, then much later noticed a book called GURPS Horror. leafing through it, I realized the system was similar to The Fantasy Trip. I decided to get the GURPS boxed set. it suited me fine, and I played nothing else for a while. I liked it specifically because it could be used for exotic settings.

eventually, I stopped playing, because I became less enthralled with figuring out point costs. this is also why I didn't shift to Hero System after trying that a couple times. I still buy GURPS worldbooks -- I have over a hundred, so why stop now?

FUDGE seems like a good substitute for GURPS, at least for me... but then I found that my gamer friends are turned off by the same simplicity in FUDGE that I find appealing. they want to play GURPS or D&D or maybe Storyteller, nothing else.

which leads to another point: some people like the calculations and the feeling of balance/objectivity in the generalist systems like GURPS and Hero. these people aren't going to change to a lighter system like GURPS.

one thing people who design homebrew generalist systems seem to miss is that d20, GURPS, and Hero each started as a setting specific system. d20 comes from D&D, obviously, while Hero started as a superhero game (and was probably the best of them, hence its popularity.) GURPS is essentially a redesign of The Fantasy Trip, as I suggested. other generalist systems don't do as well, because the Biggies have a hold on the majority of the generalist market -- and the new systems are coming out of nowhere, instead of building on an established popular system.

the better plan would be to design an in-house generalist system, modify it for a specific setting, and market that. this seems to be the approach Eden is taking with the unisystem and Guardians of Order takes with their tri-stat system.

or, not worry about generalist systems at all and design what you need to design. each system/setting you design adds a few more "components" to your system library, which you can modify for future games.

Maybe I should make clear from the beginning that I'm not thinking about d20 systems. That would be taking a system and adapting it to a system, which is meaningful as the adaption will (usually) bring something new which wasn't in the original system. But I haven't actually played any d20 so I could be wrong (only ol AD&D 2ed)

With a generic system, I think of a system which provides all the effects possible in a single box. I don't have GURPS so I can't talk about that. I do have Champions though (don't remember what edition, in any case I've played more that one version), and the ed I had told me it contained all the Hero rules. I assumed that meant that if I wanted to play fantasy I used the exact same system and point building as if there were super heroes. The only difference was point values of some disadvantages and of course the base points you started with when you built a character.
In any case, the point is that it listed a range of effects which were supposed to be complete which you then proceeded to use to build anything you wanted, from spells to martial abilites. If you had a new power you simply looked through the rules until you found a way to "simulate" it.

Addressing Fang's concerns first, that they offer something to players who don't know how to adapt systems, I feel that the immense amount of people claiming they use house rules offers contrary evidence. If you can learn how to use GURPS for any setting you like you probably can figure out how to thread setting X onto system Y although it might not be a perfect fit.

I think, like Fang does, that the Palladium method of providing the system with every book but essentially sticking to one system is a viable one, especially for sim games. As others also point out, it does take effort to learn a new game. I don't argue that point, I argue the virtue of having a generic game which provides all the effects "in the box" where the setting books has nothing to add except setting and interpretations on how their setting specific effects are to be simulated using the toolbox of what's already in the rulebook.

I think of the generic systems as kind of an emulator. You don't really run the real thing so there's always gonna be an overhead due to the generic nature of the rules. This is different from making a game whith general rules which can be adapted to a lot of different styles of gaming, such as previously mentioned Palladium.

If we're going a little of tangent ant look at general rules (can I for this posting be allowed to use "generic rules" to describe the Champion types of rules which are supposed to run anything without changing the rules? And "general rules" for a type of rules which with slight variations can be adapted to many different types of games, say for example Palladium, WoD and d20?) I would like to agree with Jack that the system conveys a flavour in it's own. If the game is a drastical departure from conventional games, that is best reflected in a different system. Also to consider is "legacy mechanics" - basically some skills or methods that doesn't fit for the setting but was kept by accident in the adaption to a new genre. Palladium has a lot of these.

Silkworm argues that you're guided by the economics: it's cheaper to buy GURPS Basic set and then buy setting books than to buy a complete game with system and setting. To me that's not really a good argument. Let's say I want to by a DVD of the movie Titanic, so I ask my friend to buy it for me. He returns, not with Titanic but with another movie called Titanic 2000, which is some lowbudget horror movie of very low quality. No matter how much cheaper it was, it's not what I really wanted even though the title is partially the same.

But I could be wrong. maybe there are lots of people who prefer playing GURPS CoC to the Chaosium game for example.

Like Ron, I see the value for GURP's settings as references. I know some of you played it a lot, but well... I'm actually suspecting that the reason I've never had a chance to play GURPS is not because people didn't have the game, but simply because they didn't have much luck trying to run it and they could use other games which ran interesting campaigns more easily. I myself think that there was already too much work in Champions to create enemies for the players. I actually liked playing around and creating enemies, but I knew that was only because I didn't need to create lots of em... my champions campaign never lifted off the ground (which reminds me of this really cool alternate setting I made for Champions, but that's a different story)

Now what about the setting makers? Maybe it's just me but I feel making a new setting to a generic system simply has no selling point. Why would I choose to buy that particular setting? I mean I'm thinking about all the weird (free) settings found on the net for example. I'm sure they all have a soft spot in the heart of their designers and everyone who pitched in with ideas, but beyond those - where is the appeal?

Quote from: Mike HolmesHero System gets even more successful play, though it could be argued that this is precisely because it's less generalist than GURPS.

Quote from: MarcoAny *specific* rule that works for you might now work for me. Letting the group decide some of that on their own is (IMO) a good thing.

Hero Games definitely seems to be taking Marco's point into consideration in a subtly different manner from GURPS. Whereas GURPS books seem to be "this is how to modify our rules to play X setting this particular way", Hero's recent shift to "genre" books seems more like "here's how to play X setting and others like it with our rules". The difference is subtle but there.

I'll give an example. GURPs Supers describes how to play Supers with the GURPS rules. However, GURPS Supers has some severe limits and is definitely painted by the "tone" of the GURPS rules system. Contrasting, the recent Champions sourcebook describes the superhero "genre" and how the rules work for each "subgenre" of Supers gaming. The feel of Champions is more generic than GURPS Supers but it's also less restrictive.

Does this mean that Hero System is better than GURPS? Not really, it just means that even generic systems have different flavors.


Shifting gears, I like the GURPS system and think that it works as a quick reference tool for other game systems. However, using the actual GURPS rules can be problematic due to the large amount of cross-referencing in their sourcebooks. (Recently they do seem to be doing less and less of that.)

Their move towards the "Powered by GURPS" books is a smart one because it gives you enough rules to play (and they're tweaked towards the game's style) but if you wanted to add complexity or more detail then you could pick and choose from the sourcebooks. (Making the "Powered by GURPS" gateway games of sorts.)