special kind of Heartbreaker: Universal/Generic

[talysman]

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)?

be my guest! I'd be honored!

you might want to remove the part about me not having studied Scattershot, though, since as written, the first reaction of a prospective customer would be "well, HELL, if he hasn't read the game, why should I take his recommendation?"

[Marco]

On closer inspection rather than a "myth" it looks like merely a (leigtimate) preference for systems where the mechanics are strongly tied to gener. I'll let Stevie go *this time.*

-Marco

Note: I prefer a stronger divorce for most of my games. I've posted three examples of play on The Forge--can one of the SDM crowd tell me which genre-specific system I *shoulda* been using?

Fang: Preach on, brother!

[M. J. Young]

Fang seems to be taking it personally. I don't really blame him; in fact, I'm grateful, as seeing him rant reminds me that I shouldn't take Jack's comments personally. After all, just today I read a new thread on another forum saying that Multiverser didn't seem to have any limits on the kinds of worlds, genres, and games it could run, so at least some people think it's possible.

I think Fang is right. Jack has targeted the concept of univeral/generic (and I don't think those are the same thing, but I've said that elsewhere) as inherently flawed, in critical ways; that it is neither possible nor desirable. Yet there are several games represented by people on these forums and elsewhere that are to some degree universal or generic or both, with some degree of success.

Yet I do think that Jack has brought up a viable topic: that there are generic/universal heartbreakers. These are harder to recognize, perhaps, because they have less of a foundation--or perhaps more of a foundation to which each relates differently. Generic and universal games come from several starting points. One of them is certainly GURPS, the first successful effort to publish a generic system of which I'm aware, and certainly the most successful. However, another is D&D. A lot of generic games are efforts to extend D&D into other kinds of play. I note that even the OAD&D DMG attempted to do this, in two distinct ways: interfacing rules for Boot Hill and Gamma World, and magic/technology balancing rules for alternate prime material planes. It also seems to me that a lot of such games use a Rifts-like concept, in which all the genres blend together by being in connected realms such that sometimes residents wander from one to another, but I don't know whether this comes from the influence of Rifts or somewhere else.

I think that there probably are generic/universal heartbreakers; it's not because they are attempting to be generic or universal, but because they fail in some critical ways. Yet as I consider Ron's article (which, by the way, I did manage to read the other day, and think is an excellent piece), it strikes me that what makes fantasy heartbreakers what they are is that they fail to escape certain fundamental assumptions even as they make some wonderful leaps.

So if we are looking for some understanding of G/U heartbreakers, it would seem to me that we need to find what core assumptions from those foundational games (D&D, GURPS, Rifts, maybe Torg?, I'm not too familiar with Amazing Engine) are plaguing design in this area, along with what brilliant insights have emerged from games otherwise so plagued.

I know a guy who is rather involved in RPGs, maintains a site, writes for RPG sites, I think may have written some published modules and/or magazine articles, who commented in a public forum once that he didn't really pay much attention to the mechanics of a game system, because in play he wasn't going to use them anyway--he was going to use a light rules set he'd cobbled together over the years with which he could run any setting. People believe the Generic/Universal "myth". The problem is not there, but in the execution.

I certainly agree that game systems designed for a specific genre handle that genre better than generic systems, given the same quality of design. That was a major influence in Multiverser's use of interfacing rules: make it possible for the Multiverser campaign to immerse characters into the game system of a genre/setting/style specific game for a time, so that those specific advantages would apply there. Fang is attempting to achieve the same thing with Scattershot, through genre expectations and similar rules. GURPS attempted to do it with add-on rules for specific genres and settings  (and people love those setting books who would never use the game). I probably wouldn't use a generic system for precisely that reason. The lure, to me, of a universal system is the ability to move from one sort of play to another as part of the ongoing game. That's me. Some people like the idea of a core rules system that's portable, so they don't have to learn a lot of other game systems. That reminds me that Fudge is this sort of game, and very popular, precisely because people learn the basics and then modify it slightly for particular applications. It's almost like a decision to get VHS instead of Beta, so you can see more movies on it (O.K., or those of you who are too young--never  mind).

To try to focus this ramble, what are those core assumptions that generic/universal heartbreakers fail to escape?

--M. J. Young

[Jack Spencer Jr]

..., what are those core assumptions that generic/universal heartbreakers fail to escape?

An admirable focus for this thread.

I believe that most G/U Heartbreakers are Simulationist focused on Exploration of System by nature.

What? You mean these Heartbreakers are coherent by GNS perspectives?

Well, yeah. I suspect a good deal of them are. The problem is not GNS but a lack of vision on RPG designs. The focus on System is reasonable considering the idea, whether overtly stated or not, is to be the One True Game. System is one element that will not change when playing in differnt settings, situations, etc. Personally I would like to see a Narrativist generic game or a Gamist generic game or a Simulationist game focused a different element than System. That would be difernet, at least.

[Le Joueur]

..., what are those core assumptions that generic/universal heartbreakers fail to escape?

I believe that most G/U Heartbreakers are Simulationist focused on Exploration of System by nature.

Are you saying that Scattershot, because it is aimed at being a "any genre" game is a "System Explorer?"

Or are you saying that an "any genre" game becomes a heartbreaker primarily because they wind up being about "System Exploration?"

The focus on System is reasonable considering the idea, whether overtly stated or not, is to be the One True Game. System is one element that will not change when playing in differnt settings, situations, etc. Personally I would like to see a Narrativist generic game or a Gamist generic game or a Simulationist game focused a different element than System. That would be differnet, at least.

Okay, now I'm confused; are you implying now that there is no way to make a game that changes its GNS orientation, any Transitional game, because rules cannot be made to refocus the priority?  (Or that what I am trying to set up with Genre Expectations and Experience Dice will fail to support Transition, ultimately?)

I don't understand.

Fang Langford

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Or are you saying that an "any genre" game becomes a heartbreaker primarily because they wind up being about "System Exploration?"

I am saying that most Generic/Universal Heartbreakers that I have encountered were focused on System Exploration.

[Rod Phillips]

I think the idea of the "universal system" IS a myth unless you start making some important distinctions.

There is an important difference between a system that can be applied to many different genres and settings and one that can handle "cross-genre" play.

I'm of the opinion that it's probably* not possible to write the latter type, the One System that can mechanically handle all power levels and genre tropes (super powers, high tech, psionics, magic) simultaneously, with equal levels of definition for all, without breaking down under the strain by being "patched" together by kludges or becoming unwieldy to the point of unplayablility.

I've always thought that there are really two distinct breeds of universal systems of this type: those that can handle low-power games well, and those that can handle high-power campaigns.

Some examples: GURPS handles normal and slightly enhanced humans very well, but begins to break down at truly superheroic power levels.
Conversely, Mayfair's old DC Heroes RPG (now published as The Blood of Heroes) admirably handled the cosmic-level likes of Superman and Darkseid, but normal folks like Jimmy Olsen or Ma Kent tended to look almost alike mechanically. There was no real definition at the lower levels of power.

So if you narrow your expectations, maybe it's possible for Two Systems to Rule Them All under this model.

But I think you can debunk the "myth" if you change your expectations for a universal system and focus on the first type that I mentioned above. If a system can be applied to many different genres and settings, but not necessarily drastically different ones at the same time, could it not also be considered a "universal" (and let's change that to "generic" for reasons that Ron has pointed out before) rules system?

Case in point: Hubris Games' Story Engine. Heck, it even says "Universal Rules" right on the cover (such... well, hubris). This game attacks the generic angle from a much more practical direction: relativity. In Story Engine, the "relative scale" of the current game is determined by the genre, so someone with a Matter (physical) pool of 2 (average) in a normal human-level horror camapign would be your average Joe, but a character who has a pool of 2 in a game where the average PCs are 70-foot tall inhabitants of Monster Island, then this score represents the physical ability of an "average" 70-foot tall monster.

I don't know if this idea is unique to Story Engine, but it's the first place I encountered it.

As you see, the characters from the two different campaigns couldn't interact directly without some conversion or kludge in place to re-define one or the other. But then, this pre-supposes that you're running some sort of genre-hopping game.

But if you're not (and really, how often are you doing that kind of genre-hopping regularly?), should this fact preclude Story Engine from being considered a functional generic system. I say definitely not.

excellent thread,
-Rod

* I'm not willing to say that this is written in stone. Hey, if someone can prove it wrong, by all means proceed!

[John Kim]

I've always thought that there are really two distinct breeds of universal systems of this type: those that can handle low-power games well, and those that can handle high-power campaigns.

I don't think there is any reason for this per se.  In general, any system will start behaving weirdly the further you push outside of its intended scale -- unless it has been set up to scale properly.  For example, most games that have been set up to handle low-power games will function poorly for very-low-power games such as children's fantasy (such as C.S. Lewis' Narnia series) or small creature fantasy (such as Brian Jacques' Redwall series).  Systems for high-power such as Champions also tend to function poorly for very high power like Superman or Galactus.  

If you solve the problem of scaling, then there is no special gap between high-power and low-power.  There are a few basic mistakes to avoid:

[*] Exponential scaling is a basic idea dating back to Champions in 1981.  It is the clear way to deal with scale varying from small to large.  The problem is that it is usually not implemented correctly.  
[*] It should be fairly obvious that any sort of hit point scheme which varies the number of hit points with size simply won't scale.  On the small end everyone has to have 1 hit point; while on the large end the numbers and dice get unwieldy.  Luckily, this problem was solved in 1987 with the wound track mechanic from Ars Magica.  
[*] Similarly, varying the number of dice rolled with size doesn't work.  You can't roll less than one, and more than a dozen quickly gets unwieldy.  
[*] All effects on a target must be opposed.  Many games have a soak rating for basic wounds, but often forget to
[/list:u]

In Story Engine, the "relative scale" of the current game is determined by the genre, so someone with a Matter (physical) pool of 2 (average) in a normal human-level horror camapign would be your average Joe, but a character who has a pool of 2 in a game where the average PCs are 70-foot tall inhabitants of Monster Island, then this score represents the physical ability of an "average" 70-foot tall monster.

As you see, the characters from the two different campaigns couldn't interact directly without some conversion or kludge in place to re-define one or the other. But then, this pre-supposes that you're running some sort of genre-hopping game.

This is the same approach used by FUDGE, for example.  The problem is that you don't need genre-hopping to vary between scales.  There are a number of genres which have simultaneous action on multiple levels: such as superheroes, mecha anime, and others.  Nor are these levels perfectly distinct.  Mecha pilots might have to deal with a rogue tank threats on their own, perhaps until a full mecha can be brought to bear on the problem.  But a bunch of such tanks might even threaten the mecha.

There are a lot of similar examples in superheroes, such as Superman dealing with threats at the same time as Lois Lane has her own adventures -- with a number of opponents or other features being shared between the two.

[Rod Phillips]

If you solve the problem of scaling, then there is no special gap between high-power and low-power.

and then

Exponential scaling is a basic idea dating back to Champions in 1981. It is the clear way to deal with scale varying from small to large. The problem is that it is usually not implemented correctly.

I agree with you on both points, John. My beef is that I haven't seen a system that handles both ends of the scale (high and low) without becoming unwieldy or losing definition.

Luckily, this problem [hit point systems scaled to size] was solved in 1987 with the wound track mechanic from Ars Magica.

Wound/Damage "tracks" and "levels" are certainly more functional in this type of game than a "hit point" system. IIRC, this mechanic first saw use in Victory Games' James Bond 007 back in '83. It was certainly a revelation to me at the time. In fact, I used JB007 as my "house system" for some years during the '80's for genres/settings like Star Wars, TV Cop Shows and 1930's pulp adventures.

good points, John!
-Rod

[M. J. Young]

I won't have the hubris to claim that Multiverser scales well on all ends of play. I have seen player characters move from ordinary human to superhero-comparable, and still been able to interact with characters who were ordinary humans in the same adventures, but I am certain that games designed specifically to handle superhero powers do so more effectively and efficiently.

However, I will comment on

The focus on System is reasonable considering the idea, whether overtly stated or not, is to be the One True Game. System is one element that will not change when playing in differnt settings, situations, etc.

I think that this is not true for Multiverser, at least, not in the manner I take you to mean it. I won't say that the focus is not on system, nor on exploration of system (although I think it is easily focused elsewhere), but rather that the system is one element that does change, in more than one way.

In the ordinary circumstance, the bias mechanic is always actively working to maintain universe integrity; that is, if it's a magical universe with low technology, magic is going to work quite well but technology is not. If it is a high-tech space game, magic is going to be shaky at best, but technology is going to work smoothly. Thus with each world, each setting, each situation, the system does shift some.

More to the point, the interfacing rules mean that system will shift dramatically if the characters enter worlds which are associated with other game systems. People often miss this. Most of our emphasis has been on worlds designed for Multiverser play (in large part because we would need permission from the owners of other games to publish interfacing rules for their systems). However, if I drop my players in Alyria, suddenly they're using Moon Dice and resolution is normally by the Diverse Lunacy system; if they go to V:tM, dice pools are used; in D&D, we're on the D20 system (or one of its predecessors). Multiverser's system still fills in the gaps, that is, covers any ability or equipment the character logically should be able to use in a particular world for which the interfaced game system does not provide support; but by and large we've changed the system drastically as part of ongoing play.

But then, this pre-supposes that you're running some sort of genre-hopping game.

But if you're not (and really, how often are you doing that kind of genre-hopping regularly?), should this fact preclude Story Engine from being considered a functional generic system. I say definitely not.

Genre-hopping is about the only kind of gaming we do around here anymore. We sometimes play D&D on its own, but mostly we do Multiverser, taking the same characters into many different worlds.

Perhaps, though, the answer is that you do that if you have a system than can effectively handle it and it appeals to you, and if it doesn't appeal to you or you don't have such a system, you don't.

--M. J. Young

[Mike Holmes]

Scaling is only one issue. Let's say you want to play in a game that's heavily about Sanity. Where are the specialized mechanics in Story Engine that promote and support that sort of play? There aren't any. The best most of these systems can do in such a case is to provide very generalized ways of dealing with the issues via using a standardized resolutions system. Which is to say that Story Engine's solution to every problem is to hit it with their large fluffy hammer.

To say that any one tool can handle all specific genres very well is certainly false.

But that said, it's often better to have a generic tool than none at all. I've said this a million times. Generic games are suitable for when no specific game makes itself readily available. The "readily" part as interpereted by the user. That is, while a "Universal" System might not be optimal for a given game, it might be usable on some level. And that might just be functional.

So I disagree with Jack's basic premise (which he's being forced to elucidate better and better). That is, there are some Generic Non-Heartbreakers. Not the perfect game for everything, but serviceable in a pinch. The point of Heartbreakers is, as MJ points out, not that they are poor. In fact, for them to he "heartbreaking" they must have some feature that makes them desirable, and therefore the dysfunction of the design so lamentable. No, what's also necessary is that the game could have been better had it taken acount of it's historical antecedents (as ROn tried to imply with his question above). That by ignoring the failures of past games, games often designed with the exact same design specs, that they make the same mistakes.

And what is the Hearbreaker design spec? To "fix" some other system, more or less. Basically, GURPS is the baseline "Universal/Generic" game from which all Generic Hearbreakers must derive, just as D&D is the baseline for the Fantasy Heartbreakers. Yes, there are Generic Heartbreakers, they just have little to do with Jack's definition. That is, almost all Generic Heartbreakers are attempts to fix GURPS without, for example, taking into account Champions 4th edition and other important Generic designs. Thus, obviously, RISUS, FUDGE, Scattershot, and Universalis, and many others are not Generic Heartbreakers.

Heartbreaker cannot be taken to mean "games we do not like" Jack. To do so would be to really obscure the meaning of the Fantasy Heartbreakers essay. I would posit that you definitely have a point (there are several previous threads that cover this ground in detail), and one would do well to discuss the applicability of "Generic" and "Universal" games as a whole. But the "Heartbreaker" issue is a separate one entirely.

I propose this definition of "Heartbreaker" in general (simply a brief and universal version of Ron's defiition, if I read it correctly):
1. The game must be an attempt to improve some archtypal design.
2. The game must be dysfunctional, and dysfunctional despite the fact that it could have been functional if the designers had paid attention to the faults and features of other games that also came after and attempted to fix the same archtypal design.
3. The game must have desirable features that make the fact of the dysfunction in #2 lamentable, hence "heartbreaker".

Does that ring true?

Mike

[Rod Phillips]

The best most of these systems can do in such a case is to provide very generalized ways of dealing with the issues via using a standardized resolutions system. Which is to say that Story Engine's solution to every problem is to hit it with their large fluffy hammer.

To say that any one tool can handle all specific genres very well is certainly false.

That's a great point, Mike!

I propose this definition of "Heartbreaker" in general (simply a brief and universal version of Ron's defiition, if I read it correctly):
1. The game must be an attempt to improve some archtypal design.
2. The game must be dysfunctional, and dysfunctional despite the fact that it could have been functional if the designers had paid attention to the faults and features of other games that also came after and attempted to fix the same archtypal design.
3. The game must have desirable features that make the fact of the dysfunction in #2 lamentable, hence "heartbreaker".

One other point that makes them "heartbreakers" (IIRC from the first essay): that they are independently-produced labors of love by their creators. "Webs Basic Gaming System" may make my eyes bleed when I'm trying to read it, but it's obvious that the author thought he had something good (and, to be fair, the "childhood skills" concept in Webs was not bad... see, that nugget of usefulness among the dross!).

[Mike Holmes]

That's a great point, Mike!

Thanks, but I can't really take credit for it. Basically a well established idea around here for a while, that probably came from Ron (though I may misremember).

One other point that makes them "heartbreakers" (IIRC from the first essay): that they are independently-produced labors of love by their creators.

Yeah, but I'd downplay that one as just a very likely part of the outcome. Rarely are companies as oblivious to the history of other games as individuals seem to be. And if they somehow were, and produced a "Heartbreaker" I think we'd feel it, and couild legitimately call it that (after all, the definition of Indie is somewhat debated). What I mean to say is that the independent hardworking designer is just typical, but not absolutely neccesary to defining these sorts of games.

A small company could break our hearts just as easily as an independent designer.

That said, I can see keeping it as a criteria from the essay. At the very least, it's a good indicator.

Mike

[Valamir]

Yeah, I would say its one of the red flags, or tell tales of a heart breaker rather than being part of the definition.  For instance it seems to be almost universally true that all of the heartbreakers (that Ron's identified anyway) have some nugget of true brilliance within them (like the childhood skill mentioned above).  While this certainly isn't definitive I think it is indicative.

Especially when one considers that a heartbreaker generally starts as an improvement on a benchmark game, the nuggets of brilliance often serve as signposts to what areas of the benchmark game the designer really wanted to improve.

[Rod Phillips]

A small company could break our hearts just as easily as an independent designer.

I agree, speaking as an at-times "sadder but wiser" consumer. I think that may be where some of the drift about what constitutes a "heartbreaker" lies:

If I'm reading the first "Fantasy Heartbreakers" essay correctly, "indie" heartbreakers break Ron's heart because he's a publisher who very vocally encourages others to publish and is sometimes less than impressed by the results.

Many of us who are primarily "consumers" see heartbreakers in any game, indie or not, that we plunk our cash down for and that disappoints us for any of the reasons that Mike summarized above.

-Rod

PS: Ralph & Mike, my long-awaited copy of Universalis (not their fault folks; I was caught between print runs!) was waiting for me in the mail after work tonight. I've read the first 3 chapters and have really enjoyed it so far. I can't wait to give it a shot! Lovely book, and the game seems clear enough so far (I'll certainly post with any questions). Well done, Ramsheaders!!