special kind of Heartbreaker: Universal/Generic

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Now, like all of his articles, the Fantasy Heartbreaker articles do boil down to basically "what Ron thinks" although he has taken pains to make it something that most people can read and, hopefully agree with. Fantasy Heartbreakers have several features that he has outlined in the articles, many of which that can be debated, but that's a different topic.

The topic here is a very specical kind of heartbreaker that has really only one distinguishing feature because all the other features and highly variable. This, like Ron's articles, boils down to simply "what Jack thinks" but the feature of this variety of Heartbreaker is a simple sentence or phrase that reads in one way or another:

designed to be used with any genre

Or setting or style or whatever. You know what I'm talking about. It's in the subject heading. Generic/Universal Heartbreakers.

As a bit of trivia, the quoted portion above is taken right from a friend's game. Cut & paste. Before I get big-headed, I could have dug into my notebooks and found one of my designs that had a similar phrase in it.

Now, many can and probably will argue that there are more features to a Generic Heartbreaker than that, just that one line. I disagree because this line is the most telling feature. What is a Generic/Universal Heartbreaker apart from this line?

It is either a more or less complete game, like my friend's fantasy game, with a defined setting, situation, color or what. Or it is little more than a naked dice mechanics, possibly with a list of skills and other features, but with no specified, much less fleshed-out "genre."

It is the line that states the author's intention, that their game can be used for any "genre" either as a central goal or as an afterthought in the design. This is what breaks my heart. It when I read this line that I say, out loud, "Oh, man" with that crestfallen sound in my voice. It's because the author has bought a bottle of snake oil or swap land in Florida. They've been rooked, you see. Flim-flammed. Hoodwinked. They have bought into the idea that a Generic/Universal myth. That for a game system to be usable for any "genre" is both doable and desirable. Regardless of whether the game shows any effort to really do this or if they just slapped the line upon their D&D clone.

But then, maybe the line is a Point of Heartbreak. That is, rather than taking a game as a whole and calling it a heartbreaker of not, we can note Points of Heartbreak where the author just goes wrong and breaks our heart. Points of Heartbreak can be the Generic Universal line or labeling derivative mechanics as innovative or using "D&D Fantasy" or whatever. Maybe this is a better way to go so we don't have to deal with the idea of partial Heartbreakers but can identify specific instances of Heartbreak in a given game without having to weight whether or not it is a Heartbreaker in the strict sense or not.

[Marco]

They have bought into the idea that a Generic/Universal myth. That for a game system to be usable for any "genre" is both doable and desirable.

Why's this a myth?

-Marco (who's all set to go set Mr. Jackson *straight* on this point)

[Shreyas Sampat]

I pose that System Matters, strongly.  If you try to make a game system apply to any genre, you can end up with three results:
A game that applies to a subset of genres effectively, and others less so.
A game that applies poorly to all genres.
OR a meta-game; a universal system that creates game systems that can be applied specifically.

Thus, the myth is that you can create a game that is universal, while I believe it's possible to make a meta-system that is universal in that it becomes specific through play.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Why's this a myth?

Well, I know for me personally the desirable is a myth. I suppose it is theoretically "doable" but then only in an eye of the beholder capacity. I don't see it as being especially desirable. But then, I used to own a bottle of snake oil, you see, and I have since learned I had been rooked. Maybe I'm still bitter about that.

(who's all set to go set Mr. Jackson *straight* on this point)

Don't wait for me, go ahead.

[Valamir]

I think Jack's statement would be more accurate if one replaces "useable" with "ideal".

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I think Jack's statement would be more accurate if one replaces "useable" with "ideal".

Interesting, interesting, interesting, interesting.

This has put a spotlight on a little bit of reading between the lines, I think. I think the telltale tagline is often "'useable' with any genre" but somehow this gets read as "'ideal' for any genre" even though I think that most people realize intellectually that no game system is really ideal for every genre.

[talysman]

the issue of "is a generic/universal game possible?" is really a very political topic; I doubt we can get everyone to agree that "designed to be used with any genre" automatically makes a game a heartbreaker of some sort, although it obviously breaks Jack's heart. adding the phrase "a universal game system" might be more of a heartbreaker, since calling a system "universal" means something completely different than "generic"; it implies there really is a one-best-system-for-all.

one reservation I have: does the designer seem to really mean it, or to have really thought about making a generic system? or did the designer just tack on that phrase in a moment of excitement, after thinking up a few tweaks that could modify a fantasy game into a space game? I think a lot of generic or genre-less games are really just games that move all genre elements out of the resolution system and into the realm of social contract/drama, or encourage house rules for playing a specific genre. if the designers have put a lot of effort into it, they may add a metasystem for adding genre rules, which is essentially what GURPS does.

another issue: I think some people confuse genre with style. or rather, the way "genre" has come to be used, a given genre may have a number of possible styles. generic rpgs, however, always convey a specific style: GURPS has its default deadly/detailed ("realistic") style, which can be used for a number of genres, but someone wanting to play highly evocative surreal-fantasy will find GURPS lacking. compare that to another SJG product: TOON. the genre is "cartoon", but the style is loose, fast-paced, zany. you wouldn't want to play Jonny Quest in TOON.

I think style is an important issue because even though you can strip genre elements out of the core mechanics, you can't remove the style. GURPS has a specific style to it, RISUS has another, different style. another example: I've mentioned that I'm abstracting a set of core mechanics from my last game; I plan on using those core mechanics in several different genres. am I making a generic game? well, no, because each unique game will have a couple genre-specific rules. will everyone enjoy playing my games? definitely not, because the core mechanic has a highly specific and unusual style. people who love realism in their games won't like my games at all.

[Jason Lee]

I can see how the statement "designed to be used with any genre" would leave you unexited.  I don't think the designer's failing is so much the actual statement as it is his choice of wording.  It's the term genre than ruins the statement.  Genre means different things to different people, much like the term balance.  

I think Generic/Universal is a genre.  No, I did not miss the point, genre could have been a different word - it is the concept that the word genre fills in for in the statement that is the problem.

A Generic/Universal system must still define the fundamental physics of the game universes/settings it is going to cover (a fireball does X damage, time works like blah).  Atleast, those fundamental game physics needed to make the core system function.  This defines a genre, to a certain degree.  The setting is more malliable, but you still have to deal with the game's metaphysical and physical definitions of reality.

So, the error I see is that the designer failed to tell the reader his generic/universal system is just a setting-light system...not an any-setting system.  This leaves the reading feeling like he's been tricked by the statement when such and such won't work with the generic/universal system.

[Le Joueur]

Geez Jack,

I didn't know you felt that way.

I'm really sorry for breaking your heart.

Well, that's it for me then; I quit.

Fang Langford

p. s. Does this mean that Mike and Ralph ought to hang it up too?

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Geez Jack,

I didn't know you felt that way.

I'm really sorry for breaking your heart.

Well, that's it for me then; I quit.

Fang Langford

p. s. Does this mean that Mike and Ralph ought to hang it up too?

....

I'm speechless. Seriously. I'm not sure how to respond to this. Well, maybe I should recant a little. Maybe not recant so much as point to the phrase in quotes: "what Jack thinks." Don't let what I think discourage you. If I ever really had the power to discourage there would never have been a sequel to Look Who's Talking.

hmmm....

In any case, feel free to disagree.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Fang, you're overreacting. Jack is talking about Heartbreakers, not specific design goals. A Heartbreaker, by definition, fails in crucial ways.

Also, this very old thread The "universal" issue carries some of my thoughts on the term "universal," and regardless of the terminology, I hope that we can agree on the basic idea that the "one game to rule them all" is not what we're talking about.

Best,
Ron

[Valamir]

p. s. Does this mean that Mike and Ralph ought to hang it up too?

Heh heh.  But Universalis is not a universal game really.  It is very specifically focused on a certain type of game.  That type is not setting or theme or color dependent which is what most people associate with "genre" but it is still very narrow.  For instance you absolutely could not use Universalis to play a tactical combat game in a method that would satisfy a tactical combat enthusiast.  You can certainly have tactical combat in the game and resolve it in a manner that puts Rogue Spear or Splinter Cell to shame, but you don't have the intermediate crunchy choices that tactical gamers find appealing.  Ergo it really is quite a specialized game.

[talysman]

Also, this very old thread The "universal" issue carries some of my thoughts on the term "universal," and regardless of the terminology, I hope that we can agree on the basic idea that the "one game to rule them all" is not what we're talking about.

thanks for the link, Ron. I hadn't read that particular thread, but I think it states some of the issues I was trying to raise here, but in a clearer way. I think the title of this thread is a bit of a misnomer, since Jack really limited his post to "generic" (I would say "genre-less") systems, but the thread title throws in "universal".

I really haven't studied Scattershot much, but it appears to me to be a genre-less system with a metasystem for developing genre-specific rules. this makes it unusual, because although the system is genre-less, Scattershot is intended to be modified for a specific genre.

[Le Joueur]

Fang, you're overreacting.

Of course I am; that's what makes it funny.  Does it really sound like me to simply give up after all this time?  (Note: if anyone takes the following as serious, moreso than satire that can still point out real flaws, they're not listening.)

Some people....

Jack is talking about Heartbreakers, not specific design goals. A Heartbreaker, by definition, fails in crucial ways.

With that I agree; Jack has defined it as being possible in simply one way alone.  And I think he's pretty clear about it being based on a design goal, one stated and he emphasized it.

Also, this very old thread The "universal" issue carries some of my thoughts on the term "universal," and regardless of the terminology, I hope that we can agree on the basic idea that the "one game to rule them all" is not what we're talking about.

I'm well aware of the old 'universal game' argument; I've struggled with that one before.  'Came to call Scattershot a General game 'cuz of it.  (Jack clearly isn't talking about games that set out to replace them all.)  But let's cut to the chase (emphasis mine):

The topic here is a very special kind of heartbreaker that has really only one distinguishing feature because all the other features and highly variable...the feature of this variety of Heartbreaker is a simple sentence or phrase that reads in one way or another:

designed to be used with any genre[/list:u]Or setting or style or whatever. You know what I'm talking about. It's in the subject heading. Generic/Universal Heartbreakers.

...This line is the most telling feature. What is a Generic/Universal Heartbreaker apart from this line?

...It is the line that states the author's intention, that their game can be used for any "genre"...as a central goal.... This is what breaks my heart. It when I read this line that I say, out loud, "Oh, man" with that crestfallen sound in my voice. It's because the author has bought a bottle of snake oil or swap land in Florida. They've been rooked, you see. Flim-flammed. Hoodwinked. They have bought into the idea that a Generic/Universal myth. That for a game system to be usable for any "genre" is both doable and desirable. Regardless of whether the game shows any effort to really do this....

But then, maybe the line is a Point of Heartbreak....

Well, you know what?  The net Jack casts is mighty big...mighty big.  It captures everything that 'claims' to be Generic, Universal, or even just General.  Not only does he specify "with any genre," he goes on to point out that it is only that Point which disappoints him.

I can see no way in Jack's thread, here, that Scattershot is not exactly this kind of Heartbreaker.  (The funny story of it is, it began as nothing more than an honest attempt to write a Champions superhero/GURPS Fantasy Heartbreaker; when I say honest, I mean I literally felt it couldn't be done and would be nothing but derivative.)

If that's what Jack wants, that's what Jack gets.

Well, that's it for me then; I quit.

I'm speechless. Seriously. I'm not sure how to respond to this. Well, maybe I should recant a little. Maybe not recant so much as point to the phrase in quotes: "what Jack thinks." Don't let what I think discourage you.

In any case, feel free to disagree.

Why?  You've pretty much made your case.  If "designed to be used with any genre" is all it takes to break your heart, then I'm your posterchild.  'Cuz I'm a card carrying member of the "It Can be Done" crowd.

But, see, nothing I can do will change your mind.  Even if I make note of the difference between doing "any genre" and doing "every genre" by creating the concept of Transitional games.  Even if I work long and hard (and about half way according to my gut feeling about where I am with Scattershot) on making the 'rewards structure' a polymorphous mass of muscle just waiting for 'the bones' of a genre to make it spring into action.  Even if I make explicit note that differing play modes are not only, not functional together, but are a damned important part of those bones (and one the 'reward structure' was designed specifically to encompass).  Even if I take note of several reviewers' comments and realize that I have not just a knack, but talent for seeing 'the bones' of a genre (yep, gots me a pair a them Xray Eyes, I do) and make myself the screening element to make "any genre" play possible.  [That'd be Jack's "setting" requirement.]  Not even if I find something like 72 different ways to focus play to conform to the strengths of "any genre" (4 Approaches [That'd be Jack's "style" requirement.], 3 types of Ambition [Again "style."], 2 'levels of Consciousness', and 3 degrees of Sharing).  And not even if I come up with some fresh ideas on how to prevent hassles over who gets say over what (weirdly parallel to The Pool - by the way another "any genre" game - but the 'receiver' of any action defines the details).

Nope, if I say Scattershot is "designed to be used with any genre" then I've already lost you.  You've made up your mind, even before I mentioned it.  It doesn't matter to look at the work or the potential because you've made it axiomic.  An "any genre" game is defined as a Heartbreaker.

No, I'm just fed up with everyone who simply decides 'it cannot be done' simply because of the "any genre" thing, without even giving it a chance, and I'm not gonna take it any more.  Sure it can be done badly, everything can, but when you start saying that a Heartbreaker need only one Point to break hearts, yer tossing out the bathwater without checking it first for the babies.

Hey Jack, at least give it a try (I mean, hey, I need the playtesters).  Or how about Universalis?  Or maybe The Pool?

Fang Langford

p. s. And I'm surprised at you, Ron, don't you realize that by Jack's "setting" requirement, Sorcerer qualifies as a Generic/Universal Heartbreaker?

p. p. s.

For those who don't decode satire very well, mostly what I'm saying, in my ever so erasable, soapboxy way, is that using a single "Point of Heartbreak" is a very dangerous thing indeed.[/list:u][/list:u]

[Le Joueur]

I really haven't studied Scattershot much, but it appears to me to be a genre-less system with a meta-system for [using various predeveloped] genre-specific rules. This makes it unusual, because although the system is genre-less, Scattershot is intended to be modified for a specific genre [by the author].

That's great ad copy!  Mind if I steal it (with the proposed changes, but still with your name attached)?

Fang Langford