special kind of Heartbreaker: Universal/Generic

[John Kim]

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.
...
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.

I will disagree with this.  Mechanics like Sanity are generally modular and can easily be optional rules for a universal game (as they are in, say, Hero).  Story Engine probably doesn't have one because it isn't strongly supported as compared to say the Hero system.  Indeed, I think that "Call of Cthulhu" is a good example in that it is essentially "Basic Roleplaying" with Sanity mechanics tacked on.  The difference between a "house system" like BRP or Storyteller and a "universal system" like GURPS or Hero is mostly in marketing.  Both reuse the same core mechanics.  However, a house system is reprinted with each basic book with only the options desired, while a universal system has the core rules in one book, and specific books which present optional rules for that setting/genre.  

Overall, there are a lot of times when I think that a universal game does a better job than a game specifically designed for the genre.  This is simply because a universal system will have more and broader testing of the system.  Moreover, there is a lot of overlap between the genres.  A subsystem developed for the espionage genre might work great for the martial arts genre as well, for example.  

Designing a game from the ground up for a particular genre might appeal in theory.  However, there are also pitfalls.  In some ways, I might compare it to changing media based on genre.  Suppose two people both want to write a steampunk novel.  One person considers the problem, and that the book needs to be a different size and paper type than books of other genres.  He researches Victorian book layout, and produces a new font, binding, and layout based on a "punk" twist of those themes.  The other person just concentrates on writing the story and hands it to his publisher, who hires an artist to slap an eye-catching cover on it but otherwise prints it the same as all other novels.  

I don't mean to imply that the former is wasting his time per se, but there is a distinct possibility that I will like the other one's book better.  I might even dislike the steampunk layout for itself -- because it is easier for me to read a novel with standard layout (since that is what I am used to).  

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 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".

Are heartbreakers really dysfunctional?  Frankly, I don't know most of the games that Ron is describes in his article.  However, I have heard good things from other sources about Darkurthe: Legends, for example.  I am perfectly willing to believe that there are people who have a lot of fun playing that game.  If so, what about it is dysfunctional??  

I think Ron's essays do point out that there is a category of independent fantasy RPGs which all have a fair number of similarities with each other and with D&D.  Because of his opinions, Ron considers them "heartbreakers".  This is because he wants to encourage independent publishing and innovations -- but he also wants to encourage questioning of basic role-playing concepts from D&D.  However, I don't think there is anything objectively bad about these "heartbreakers" or the D&D style of play in general.  

I think there is an elitist overtone that the more Narrative games typical of The Forge are somehow objectively better than Darkurthe: Legends.  However, this simply isn't true.  These aren't rockets which can be objectively measured in how far they shoot -- they are games, and the purpose of them (usually) is to have fun.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

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".

No. This is wrong, I think. In both articles, Ron had said that all of the games are conherent via GNS save one. So cohenency and dysfunction isn't really an issue.

What seems to be a Heartbreaker's main traits are :

1)Highly derivative rules which can mean rules that are little more that house rules varients of a specified game or a set of rules that are completely original and built from the ground up, but which do the same thing as the main inspiration game. What I personally see in generic RPGs are GURPS imitators. Actually, many of them are free web downloads that are One Page RPGs (Search for the thread on those in this forum)

2) Publishing context which Ron says is twofold. First is " few guys, a good idea, a labor of love, and book on the shelves, with the hope that gamers will like it." The heartbreak is saying to the indie game publisher of saying "Go, go. Follow your dream" and then looking and thinking "That's your dream???"

Second is a historical context. This reminds me of a comment from a Mattel Electronics employee about Mattel's Aquarius computer system. "The System for the Seventies! Too bad it's 1983." Some of these Heartbreakers if they had come out just a few years earlier (decades in some cases) they might have been important development breakthroughs. In fact, many of these games tout elements in their game as innovations because they are ignorant of how old such concepts are "We have a spell point system instead of fire & forget magic!" (Tunnels & Trolls 1975) "We have a skill system instead of class & level character development!" (Runequest 1978) I suppose we can't fault them for ignorance, but it does give the reader of "oh man, these guys are clueless! Why don't they say something like 'our system uses an inovative method called dice' while they are at it.

3) the third element will vary, I think. For fantasy Heartbreakers it's "D&D fantasy" (see related thread, or hell, start a new one) For generic Heartbreakers, I'm not sure anymore. This happens a lot. I post a topic and then the thread leaves me behind. Which is great. The other thing that happens is I post a topic and no one posts any comment.

I still think that generic heartbreakers are Exploration of System because the primary inspiration tends to be GURPS which is Exploration of System.

Actually, probably the most telling feature of a heartbreaker is that it is difficult to get people to play them. This is something Ron eludes to in the first Fantasy Heartbreaker article and it was kind of the point of that article. Because heartbreakers don't distinguish themselfs from the herd. There really is not reason to play Darkurthe: Legends over Forge: Out of the Chaos (a game I kept confusing with the Forge itself for a while there) So a heartbreaker is a tough sell. Why buy or play it instead of (insert name of more popular product and possibly the inspirational system for the heartbreaker in the first place [GURPS, AD&D, etc.]) There really isn't a convincing answer to this question. funky dice rolling or a better break down of skills really doesn't get one to want to play anything, does it?

I would like to point out that the little nugget of something "good" in most of the Heartbreakers Ron has described probably isn't a feature of what a heartbreaker is. The nugget is an after-effect of all of the other stuff is a heartbreaker. A Heartbreaker, for better or worse, takes one, posibly a few very, very similar games and attempts to do them "better" In doing them "better" the authors are likely to hit upon something actually revolutionary or "good" at the very least. What I mean is, with all of the other elements in place for a Heartbreaker, if you find this nuggets of innovation, then you can be sure you have a Heartbreaker. However, a Heartbreaker does not need to have one to be one. At least I don't think so.

[Marco]

I felt much -- very much -- of John's quote bore repeating here.

The difference between a "house system" like BRP or Storyteller and a "universal system" like GURPS or Hero is mostly in marketing.  Both reuse the same core mechanics.  However, a house system is reprinted with each basic book with only the options desired, while a universal system has the core rules in one book, and specific books which present optional rules for that setting/genre.  

I *strongly* agree with this.

Overall, there are a lot of times when I think that a universal game does a better job than a game specifically designed for the genre.  This is simply because a universal system will have more and broader testing of the system.  Moreover, there is a lot of overlap between the genres.  A subsystem developed for the espionage genre might work great for the martial arts genre as well, for example.  

I can't strongly *enough* agree with this. Far from being merely "acceptable," it's my opinion that broader systems are often *far superior* and more accomodating than narrower ones. The freedom and breadth that generic systems have (IME) almost always results in superior play experiences compared to narrower systems.

Designing a game from the ground up for a particular genre might appeal in theory.  However, there are also pitfalls.   [snip]

Eventually gimicks like poker chips get old and you're back with 'does it work?'  Also: one person's idea of a brilliant mechanic that promotes a specific part of genre is another person's annoying off-genre distraction.

Are heartbreakers really dysfunctional?  Frankly, I don't know most of the games that Ron is describes in his article.  However, I have heard good things from other sources about Darkurthe: Legends, for example.  I am perfectly willing to believe that there are people who have a lot of fun playing that game.  If so, what about it is dysfunctional??  

I think Ron's essays do point out that there is a category of independent fantasy RPGs which all have a fair number of similarities with each other and with D&D.  Because of his opinions, Ron considers them "heartbreakers".  This is because he wants to encourage independent publishing and innovations -- but he also wants to encourage questioning of basic role-playing concepts from D&D.  However, I don't think there is anything objectively bad about these "heartbreakers" or the D&D style of play in general.  

I think there is an elitist overtone that the more Narrative games typical of The Forge are somehow objectively better than Darkurthe: Legends.  However, this simply isn't true.  These aren't rockets which can be objectively measured in how far they shoot -- they are games, and the purpose of them (usually) is to have fun.

Godard tells us the proper way to criticize a movie is to make another movie. Making Your Own Heartbreaker *is* a valid 'criticism' of the listed games: if it is done without the attendant pat-on-the-head--look-where-I-was-before-I-knew-better attitude.

-Marco

[Marco]

2) Publishing context which Ron says is twofold. First is " few guys, a good idea, a labor of love, and book on the shelves, with the hope that gamers will like it." The heartbreak is saying to the indie game publisher of saying "Go, go. Follow your dream" and then looking and thinking "That's your dream???"

I think this is probably the reaction most gamers have to indie/alternative rpg's in general.

-Marco

[Jack Spencer Jr]

The difference between a "house system" like BRP or Storyteller and a "universal system" like GURPS or Hero is mostly in marketing.  Both reuse the same core mechanics.  However, a house system is reprinted with each basic book with only the options desired, while a universal system has the core rules in one book, and specific books which present optional rules for that setting/genre.  

There's confusion here, and it's my fault regarding terminology. "Universal" is adrressed in this thread. Basically, "universal" is a misleading term because it implies that a game system is suitable for all styles of play, when it is not. and thus generic or general is a better term. I'll do better from now on.

Overall, there are a lot of times when I think that a universal game does a better job than a game specifically designed for the genre.  This is simply because a universal system will have more and broader testing of the system.  Moreover, there is a lot of overlap between the genres.  A subsystem developed for the espionage genre might work great for the martial arts genre as well, for example.  

I can't strongly *enough* agree with this. Far from being merely "acceptable," it's my opinion that broader systems are often *far superior* and more accomodating than narrower ones. The freedom and breadth that generic systems have (IME) almost always results in superior play experiences compared to narrower systems.

The operative words here, for both Marco and John is "in my experience" and/or "in my opinion" and/or "for my play preferences."
Others desire a more focused play experience and as such require a more focused game system. And that's it.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I think this is probably the reaction most gamers have to indie/alternative rpg's in general.

Perhaps if I lengthen it:
"That's your dream? This is basically just (insert name of more popular product and possibly the inspirational system for the heartbreaker in the first place [GURPS, AD&D, etc.]) all over again."

[Marco]

The operative words here, for both Marco and John is "in my experience" and/or "in my opinion" and/or "for my play preferences."
Others desire a more focused play experience and as such require a more focused game system. And that's it.

Indeed. But note when you said that G/U gaming's value was a myth/Snake Oil that language was very notably absent.

-Marco
PS: Universal means multi-genre in the real world and should do so here as well. Nothing I've seen beyond Scattershot claims to make a knowledgable attempt at all three GNS modes of play. The word has real non-deceptive value in the RPG domain--I suggest we use it properly.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Marco and everyone,

You know, Jack has acknowledged that his initial extreme position is not tenable. I also think that the authors of general/universal games should recognize that they have significant conflict of interest in "leaping to the defense" against that position. I strongly urge all such authors to be done with that - Jack has agreed with you. No need to keep nest-guarding.

Know when you've won, people. Only a bully keeps shoving when the debate is done.

Best,
Ron

[contracycle]

I strongly DISagree with Marcos claim that general (and thats being kind) systems are likely to produce a better play experience.  At the very best this can only be a claim to preference.

I don't deny that people can be totally satisfied with systems aimed at broad usage like GURPS, and for good reason, but I don't find them very satisfying myself.  I can accept that for a given group it might be a better idea to use a general system, but I don't think this should be taken to the point of advocacy.  I think that the use of a single system consistently will produce consistent play for a group, and that may well be an important goal if there is a history of stylistic clash or other difficulties; but I think that as far as a given game is concerned, a given authorial vision, it is better to produce particular mechanics that reflect the central idea of that game.

I think the mechanics, by the use of reward systems and institutionalised goals, frame the type of play that will actually be had at the table.  It locates the breakpoints and point origins in the game space such that players have their attention pointed to particular things.  IMO it is far better to design from scratch and with deliberate intent than to try to patch and modify an existing system which already has established value "judgements" systematically expressed.  I think every game should be its own thing in itself, and that games designed to general or house systems are not really games in their own right, but versions of the core game which mechanics they are using.  Its more like the multiple flashy colour schemes and designs of pinball machines.

So I'm a strong proponent of the idea that  games should have their own rules.  Cricket and baseball would not be better games if you could bring your own bat and nobody cared what it looked like.  This has everything to do with games needing predetermined variables and little to do with the utility of the object.

[Mike Holmes]

Funny, when I'm with Liberals, they peg me as Conservative. When I'm with Conservatives they peg me as a Liberal.

Same with this issue. I am not on the side that says that there is no value to Universal/Generic games. Hell, the only published game with my name on it falls under this category. I posted to say that I disagreed with the point of the post which stated, essentially that generic games have no place. OTOH, I am also of the belief that focusing on specific things is a powerful way to enhance a game as well. (I get hit with this attempt to put me on one side of the issue by the Simmies and Narries as well who seem all to believe that I'm a rabid member of the other species, when, in fact, I'm the biggest proponent of mixed play).

It's circular and simply flawed logic to say that "If you make a focused game that's not as good as some generic game, then generic games are better than focused games."

If, OTOH, you were to simply say that this was your opinion, I'd have to accept that, as the statement I made originally is little more than my opinion, essentially. Yes, what makes a "good" game, in the end, is highly subjective, and collecting data on the subject would be difficult to impossible. Sure, if you could garuntee me that every generic game would handle every specific situation as well as any specific game, then the broadness of the gneric system would automatically sway me. But I don't think that's a reasonable claim. I'm not saying that there aren't bad specific games out there; hardly.

But given similar effort and quality, the question is where the effort goes. My point is that, if one puts one's efforts into a smaller area then that area is more likely to be well treated everything else being the same. So, in the most general of terms, specific games seem to me likely to beat generic games on a small playing field of thier own choosing. Thus I'd rather play Pendragon for Arthurian legend than try to make GURPS work for it. And before you point out that Pendragon is a modification of a Generic system (BRP) let me point out that if that's true, then D20 is generic, and so is just about every other system out there. By Generic we mean presented without additional rules specific to the genre; with rules that intend to be applicable to all situations by extension. Thus only GURPS core rules is generic (and barely at that). As soon as you tack on some of the supplements you are playing a different game (Certainly Supers makes that point).

Now, that all said, perhaps you find that a particular specific game's focus that would otherwise cover the genre that you are interested in playing is just too small. Perhaps there are none that suit your style of play in that they do not cover as much ground as you will potentially need. This is why I stated above that:

Generic games are suitable for when no specific game makes itself readily available. The "readily" part as interpereted by the user.

That is, I completely agree that it's soley the opinion of the person playing whether or not the focused  game in question can be used as is for what he needs (or with how much effort). If one thinks that the specific game (or games) does not suit, then automatically the generic game is the better choice (assuming that it's broadness makes it applicable for the genre in question).

So we don't disagree. I'm with you guys. Generic games have a place. So do focused games. Is that clearer?

Mike

[Marco]

I strongly DISagree with Marcos claim that general (and thats being kind) systems are likely to produce a better play experience.  At the very best this can only be a claim to preference.

It is carefully presented as preference.

I don't think this should be taken to the point of advocacy.

What in the RPG world should be?

As I said before, I've got three posted examples of play on The Forge. I am open to suggestions as to what would have been a superior system to use.

I didn't start gaming with Hero and GURPS but I knew exactly what I was looking for when I saw it.

-Marco
Edited to add: the above (and the first time I said it) may sound like a challenge. It's really the clearest way to get to the heart of the "How could he even *think* generic systems are preferable!?" question.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3308&highlight=marco
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1170&highlight=marco
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=935&highlight=marco

[Valamir]

I think to a great extent, the strength of generic game systems is being overlooked.  I would 100% agree with Gareths assertion (and indeed have made the same many times) that a game is best served by mechanics that most closely match the needs of the game.

But lets actually examine that for a minute.  If the needs of a game are to focus on a certain genre and the color, trappings and conventions there of then the game mechanics used to play such a game should be mechanics that focus on that genre and its color, trappings, and conventions.  A functional second place would be games that simply get out of the way and don't interfer with the same.

But what if the genre is not a narrow one.  How would one play multiverser with a narrow set of genre specific rules.  Not really possible.  So one could argue (successfully I believe) that Multiverser, far from being "generic" is actually highly specialized at dealing with a very specific genre.  In this case however, one that involves flipping between several genres in rapid succession.

Similarly GURPs could be said to not really be generic at all.  It is actually quite specialized.  It just doesn't happen to be SETTING and COLOR specialized.  GURPS works best when playing in games where reliance on realistic physics is typically a given, when characters are best described by as comprehensive a set of parameters as possible, and where mechanics are primarily designed to be driven by causal in game events.  Once one recognizes this than ANY set of genre, color, and setting can be plugged in as long as the above three items are true within that setting.  

So GURPS is in reality, far from being Generic or Universal.  There are probably as many "worlds" that it doesn't handle well as there are "worlds" that it does.  There are certainly among the horde of source books "worlds" that it handles better than others, and this is almost entirely driven by how well a given world can adapt to the above 3 core GURPS specialties.

I'm somewhat ashamed to say I haven't had the chance to go over JAGS but I suspect that one can find its own subset of specialites (that may overlap or be quite different from) the specialities of GURPs which similiarly defines why JAGS isn't really universal either.

Similiarly Universalis (despite the name which is really meant to be a play on Universe rather than Universal) isn't really generic.  It has a core set of specializations that are as important as GURPS' (although diametrically different).

Scattershot is perhaps the only system I've heard of that may be able to legitimately stake a claim as universal because the design specifically attempts to allow those core set of specializations to be customizable prior to play.  However, until the game is in a complete and self contained state where anyone off the street could accomplish this without assistance, its success in that endeaver is more eagerly anticipated than proven.

So I do not see a rift between "focused games" and "not focused games".  What I do see is a wide range of things that a game can be "focused on" and occassionally people who don't realized that even so called "generic" games are actually quite focused themselves in a different arena.  

As for which is "superior", as with all things that's largely motivated by preference; but I think there is a certainly a degree of right tool for the job also.

[Marco]

But what if the genre is not a narrow one.  How would one play multiverser with a narrow set of genre specific rules.  Not really possible.  So one could argue (successfully I believe) that Multiverser, far from being "generic" is actually highly specialized at dealing with a very specific genre.  In this case however, one that involves flipping between several genres in rapid succession.

Strongly Agree.

An example of a second subset of the condition is a player in Traveler who wishes to be the preiminent martial artist in the galaxy and wants to (in addtion to the rest of the game) go from planet to planet and compete in wild, colorful, detailed, multi-species martial arts tournaments.

And all you have is the original game (with the Hexadecimal stats that really set the futuristic tone but in absence of a viable HTH combat system do nothing for the character).

-Marco

[contracycle]

Just to mention that I only used the term general, not the term universal.  I feel there is a big distinctions between games that are merely applied differently in different settings, and games which from the outset are designed to be configurable for play in different forms.  Both are distinct from games that do one thing.

Agree with Valamirs outline of GURPS and it accords with what I mean about he game being the same, but merely the colour changing.  I think GURPS games feel like GURPS games, and that analytical objective approach is suitable for groups.  I think a game intended to switch in or out real components of the system, or which are designed to frame the building of a game for your group, which I think could properly be referred to as universal systems, are rather different beasts.

And I'll also put up my hand to being rather extreme on the issue, given that in another thread I'm proposing that mechanics should not be decided upon until character design.  However, let me go back to John Kim's point:

Overall, there are a lot of times when I think that a universal game does a better job than a game specifically designed for the genre. This is simply because a universal system will have more and broader testing of the system. Moreover, there is a lot of overlap between the genres. A subsystem developed for the espionage genre might work great for the martial arts genre as well, for example.

My problem with this, testing for what?  And I agree about the overlap, but I suggest this poses the danger of dilution.  I think that if GURPs is tested for its systematically mandated result, it is recorded as a success by producing a certain sort of play - one in which mass and length and density are important things to know, and so forth.  And that is GURPS play.  It may well be the case that this form of play is satisfying to the players that it is for them better than that which a designer might have tried to deliberately structure for a particular setting or situation.  But I think designing games as a whole is distinct from designing colour supplements for another game.

[Marco]

My problem with this, testing for what?  

I suspect he meant testing for "broken rules."
-Marco