Universal in search of distinctions

[M. J. Young]

The http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4917">special kind of Heartbreaker: Universal/Generic thread has me thinking about things close to my heart; and a reference within it to an earlier thread from 2001 entitled http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=196">The "universal" issue has me in search of clarified language.

Ron objects to the use of the term "universal" to describe any game, as he is at best skeptical of the possibility of any game to please everyone (primarily, if I read him correctly, because of GNS and DFK issues within them). However, at least a few years before that thread I had identified Multiverser as "universal" in an effort to distinguish it from "generic" games. I'm not insisting on that use, if it's a problem; I often find myself saying that GURPS is not what I mean by universal, but is what I mean by generic. I'd be pleased to have terminology that is clearer.

I'll present the three forms of game systems I'm trying to distinguish.

First there is what I usually call the generic system, the game designed for use with any setting or type of setting. GURPS is the obvious example of this. In general, these games have a core engine which is adapted by a few special genre rules to work in whatever game world you want to play, one game world at a time. Thus you can play GURPS fantasy, GURPS supers, GURPS Traveler, and a host of others (there were near two hundred world/setting books last I looked at a list). D20 is hoping to be this. Fudge is this. As John Kim observed, BRP is really  this, but that the system is integrated into the setting books instead of marketed as a core book and supplements. The distinguishing factor here is that you can play many different settings, each as a discrete game or campaign.

Second there is the all-in-one world approach I associate primarily with Rifts. This is the idea that all of these genres exist within one universe, if you travel to them, although usually they are compartmentalize to some degree by having to pass through some sort of gate, door, or (obviously) rift to get from one to another. However, since these are all part of the one world, the player characters are not the only things moving about. You're likely to find fantasy and sci-fi elements coexisting in many parts of the universe. Although Rifts is the prime example of this approach, I think it may need a name. I've had several people excitedly tell me all about their personal game worlds in which all the genres/settings interact by having their own corners of the world but being able to wander between them.

Third is the approach I've called universal. This is the idea that one set of characters in one game or campaign can have adventures in many different kinds of worlds. Although Multiverser is the poster child for this, it occurs to me that games based on Sliders and Dr. Who have similar goals (perhaps within stricter limitations) of enabling characters to adventure in wildly different genres and settings by moving from one "world" to another in some sense. Ron does not like the use of "universal" for this. Sylus Thane used universal and generic as synonymous (in the aforementioned Heartbreakers thread, January 28) and distinguished these from "multiverse" systems. For obvious reasons I'm reluctant to push that as a general term for this approach, particularly as when the game was introduced a lot of people thought it was "either Rifts or GURPS, I won't know which until I've seen it" (pretty close to one commentator's words), so the term "Multiverser" didn't to them mean anything different from generic.

I'm quite willing to concede (Scattershot notwithstanding) that "universal" is a bad name if it means it will satisfy everyone's game preferences. I'm just curious how to distinguish these games, which are superficially similar in appearance and in some of the design demands but drastically different settings in play, from each other as categories.

Thoughts?

--M. J. Young

[John Kim]

Frankly, common usage is the "generic" and "universal" are both synonyms.  "Universal" is used in the names of GURPS and FUDGE, two of the leading systems of that sort.  I think that trying to define it to mean something else -- or trying to stamp out its usage in the GURPS sense -- is just asking for trouble.  A single English word is never going to perfectly describe what you mean unless you coin the word yourself (and even then the meaning in actual use may well drift away from what you intended).  

I think it is difficult to distinguish between a game like Rifts and a game like Dr. Who, say.  (I'm not familiar with Multiverser so I'll avoid using it as an example.)  Both of these have different worlds which can partly be taken to represent different genres.  I guess my rule of thumb would be look at how much mixing is allowed.  Rifts has extremely free mixing of beings from different dimensions.  In contrast, Torg has more limited mixing -- there are barriers at each of the cosms, and some things will not work (or work with great difficulty) in some cosms.  Dr. Who has probably even less mixing than Torg, though it might be just on a similar level.  The PC's remain mostly the same but they skip between different worlds, each of which is "pure" in genre except for themselves.  
[/u]

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings M J,

Very interesting.

First there is what I usually call the generic system, the game designed for use with any setting or type of setting. GURPS is the obvious example of this. In general, these games have a core engine which is adapted by a few special genre rules to work in whatever game world you want to play, one game world at a time. Thus you can play GURPS fantasy, GURPS supers, GURPS Traveler, and a host of others (there were near two hundred world/setting books last I looked at a list). D20 is hoping to be this. Fudge is this. As John Kim observed, BRP is really this, but that the system is integrated into the setting books instead of marketed as a core book and supplements. The distinguishing factor here is that you can play many different settings, each as a discrete game or campaign.

Interesting.  In a earlier thread I tried to suss out something similar.  (Well, I broke down into three examples, anyhow.)

The core mechanics are the base system mechanics.

A system's "core mechanics" covers character generation, races, maybe touches upon skills, et al, but really covers little else.

The "World Mechanics" are what delineate, define, establish, and precisely lay down the rules of play for a game environment.

My main point was that I felt there existed a identifiable difference between a game system's "core mechanics" and the applied "world mechanics".  My initial attempt to delineate this phenomenon was as follows:

1. Integrated Rule System (World Mechanic is central)
2. Core Rule System (No primary World Mechanic, open ended)
3. Generic/Universal Rule System (The "everything" rules mechanics)

1) lets you generate a character tailored for a specific game environment.
2) merely presents the basic stage on which character archetypes are to be played.
3) provides rules for how to go about doing 1 & 2 on your own.

Third is the approach I've called universal. This is the idea that one set of characters in one game or campaign can have adventures in many different kinds of worlds. Although Multiverser is the poster child for this, it occurs to me that games based on Sliders and Dr. Who have similar goals (perhaps within stricter limitations) of enabling characters to adventure in wildly different genres and settings by moving from one "world" to another in some sense.

Actually, now that you mention it, this ability to blend genres has been a facet of space opera and SF.  The Dragonriders of PERN series is a good example, as is Dune.  Of course the facilitator is the larger genre that links everything together.  So, perhaps, if we used Universal in this regard it would be more appropriate?

Universal = the meta-genre facilitator?

I'm quite willing to concede (Scattershot notwithstanding) that "universal" is a bad name if it means it will satisfy everyone's game preferences. I'm just curious how to distinguish these games, which are superficially similar in appearance and in some of the design demands but drastically different settings in play, from each other as categories.

Thoughts?

To go back to my previous comments in the other thread...

A game's underlying rules mechanics (what constitutes the fusion of the Core and World mechanics) should derive directly from its basic premise; namely the World Mechanics. In fact when done properly the two come together so seamlessly you almost can't tell there is a difference.

Which, of course, isn't at all quite the same approach.  Mine was from a rules of play perspective.  Yours, I think, is more an approach to genre of rules perspective.  (If that makes sense at all?)

Of course for many games the world or universe defines  the rules, or at least the approach to the rules.  Few systems try to be everything to everyone, though GURPS (being Generic and Universal) is probably the best example of this approach, certainly I can't think of any others off the top of my head.

BRPS comes close, but it's really an integrated/adapted system.

Then again... hmm.  The only other meta-system that I can think of that actually outlined specific genres of play would have to be the "Lords of Creation" RPG from the early 1980s.  But there must be others out there?




Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[Le Joueur]

I'm quite willing to concede (Scattershot notwithstanding) that "universal" is a bad name if it means it will satisfy everyone's game preferences. I'm just curious how to distinguish these games, which are superficially similar in appearance and in some of the design demands but drastically different settings in play, from each other as categories.

I dunno, I've always had a hard time trying to name a game that was intentionally designed to encompass, if not the whole catalog of genres, at least a scattershot selection of them.

Oh wait.

Fang Langford

p. s. A moment of clarification if you please?

Second, there is the all-in-one world approach I associate primarily with Rifts. ...Usually they are [compartmentalizing] to some degree by having to pass through some sort of gate, door, or (obviously) rift to get from one to another. However, since these are all part of the one world, the player characters are not the only things moving about. ...All the genres/settings interact by having their own corners of the world but being able to wander between them.

Third is the approach I've called universal. This is the idea that one set of characters in one game or campaign can have adventures in many different kinds of worlds. ...Games based on Sliders and Dr. Who have similar goals...enabling characters to adventure in wildly different genres and settings by moving from one "world" to another in some sense.

Are these really that different?  Both have very different genre-specific 'zones,' both have some impediment to crossing between them (as opposed to simply 'open borders'), both have characters with the ability to 'take what they want' from one to another.  Upon careful examination, the only telling difference seems to be whether commerce between "different genres" is limited to the player characters (or similarly tiny fraction of individuals).

Is that different enough?  In Doctor Who™ only the central cast travels betwixt worlds, or do they?  What about other Time Lords or TARDIS thieves?  It seems like if you consider the amount of commerce the "different genres" have as an 'adjustable feature,' the sharp difference between these two melts away.

Could you redefine them if I have it wrong?

[contracycle]

Are these really that different?  Both have very different genre-specific 'zones,' both have some impediment to crossing between them (as opposed to simply 'open borders'), both have characters with the ability to 'take what they want' from one to another.  Upon careful examination, the only telling difference seems to be whether commerce between "different genres" is limited to the player characters (or similarly tiny fraction of individuals).

I agree with Fangs proposition here; on the criteria given, Star Trek would also be a multi-world setting on the basis that the individual planets they visit are both isolated and unique (albeit with a remarkable prevalence of English-speaking humans).

It's a pity the term "multiverse" has been approrpriated, as I see games which incorporate multiple "physical realities" as being multiverses.  I think that is quite a distinct thing.

Polyverse?  Polycosm?

[Le Joueur]

It's a pity the term "multiverse" has been approrpriated, as I see games which incorporate multiple "physical realities" as being multiverses.  I think that is quite a distinct thing.

Polyverse?  Polycosm?

And also not terribly accurate.  A universe means 'everything.'  If you have different genres represented, if you have different dimensions, and et cetera, they are all included in 'everything' and therefore a part of 'the universe.'  Even if you discover what you thought was 'the whole universe' was but a small fraction of 'what is out there,' even all of that must be incorporated in 'the universe.'  You cannot have anything that is outside of the set of 'everything.'

I took 'Multiverser' as a joke on this concept and it amused me.

Thanks for listening,
Fang Langford

[contracycle]

Yeah, and a world cannot really be "of Darkness".

Less with the pedantry, more with the evocation, I think.

[Marco]

Generic: The rules are not tied to a specific genre.
Universal: the game is designed to allow play in multiple genres.
The Last Game You Ever Need To Buy: Marketing fluff, obviously.

Also: I would use "hopping" to describe games where the characters go from one world to another (Universe hopping, reality hopping, world hopping).

-Marco

[Ron Edwards]

Bam!

With the proviso that "genre" is a tricky beast (perhaps setting? or ...), I'm totally with Marco.

Best,
Ron

[Marco]

I'm all with the proviso. Setting is good too. Maybe "world" (in quotes) would work.

-Marco

[Valamir]

Yeah "world" in quotes was the best that I came up with in an earlier post to describe it.  What we're really talking about is "Setting", "Color", and "Situation" and maybe a dash of "Character" thrown in.

[Sylus Thane]

Just thought I'd throw my few million cents worth in.

For me,

Generic is- just that, a generic rules set that if modified can be used for any setting you see fit. But, generally your the one who has to make the modifications.

Ex. Fudge

Universal is- a step up from Generic in that it already provides all the rules nescessary for what I call the five major genres, Space, Sword and Sorcery Fantasy, Horror, Super Powers (I give this it's own genre as it is really kind of unique) and Apocalyptic. Now, you have a rules set that requires no modifications for the genre/setting you wish to play ruleswise but the settings provided for the game tend to lump all of the genre/settings as existing all at the same time but within different locations that can be travelled between.

Ex. Rifts, Gurps

Multiverse is- a core rules system that provides for all five basic genre's and then the settings provided are designed in such a way as to be used totally seperate from one another or combined. Also allowing me the option of saying that all of the genre/settings exist either coinciding, seperately, or even more drastically, within a timline. Now some would say that Multiverse is no different from Universal but I would say otherwise.

Ex. Frontier (I Hope:))

For example, should I wish to use say Rifts (which I classify as Universal) but I only wish to use certain segments of it then I reach a problem in which the setting says that all things coexist at the same time. I can't just throw out parts of the setting as I see fit otherwise I wouldn't be playing a Rifts game. But, a good Multiverse rules set would give me a the option of mixing and matching all of these different genre/settings as I see fit without setting interference saying it is impossible. Then the multiverse would also give me example settings in which to work from, or easily plug into the setting I have devised on my own. Good examples would be should I wish to play an Apocalyptic setting in which sorcery was possible or perhaps a space adventure game in which vampires and/or other supernatural creatures exist.

Now some I'm sure will say that Universal and Multiverse are essentially the same but I will disagree in that it then comes down to setting. I hope what I've written is coherent. It makes sense in my head. Hopefully I was eloquent enough to get it down in words.

Sylus