The Forge Archives

I have been wondering lately about indie universal systems--which systems are considered the best and/or most popular out there these days? I've been away from gaming for a while, but I'm getting back into it.

I myself am passing fond of The Window, which I'm considering using in an altered, expanded form in favor of the (still) uncompleted system that I started working up many, many moons ago.

What I'm trying to stay away from are systems that try to model every possible action a player could ever dream up but still allow for excellent character description. I've settled on using a 12 stat character system (4 physical, 4 mental, 4 social), plus skills, that I think works pretty well without getting in the way.

Michael Amper (formerly of d8 magazine)

The Pool by James West is one of the more popular 'universal' systems, but you will find it is quite different from many RPGs, although we love it in the indie-netgaming group.

http://www.randomordercreations.com/thepool.html

There is a forum for his games here at the forge.

Welcome to the Forge, Michael.

The problem with trying to answer your question is that there are at least three different meanings of "universal" in relation to games.

The most common is also called Generic, and is spearheaded by GURPS, but includes Fudge, D20 (now the most popular), Fuzion, and a host of others. The defining factor here is that the core engine can be customized easily for integration into any one sort of game world, and then rebuilt to use with another. Thus you could create characters for a GURPS fantasy game and play that, and later create characters for a GURPS space game and play that. It's a bit like having an erector set with one electric motor that you move from one construction to another.

Another early form of "universal" game might be called Polyglot. Rifts is the best known of these. This is the sort of game in which all the worlds mesh together into one, such that mutant rabbits with laser guns, robots with machine guns, and orcs with crossbows are all out there somewhere, sometimes interacting, sometimes in their own niche in the world. Player characters can move around between the different areas of the world, but ultimately it's all the same world.

The third type of "universal" game has more recently been called Multiversal, and Multiverser is the example, although there have been other efforts to do this over the years. These games involve taking the same characters, skills, and equipment from one genre to another, usually in an ongoing campaign, such that what happened back there in the wild west setting is now character history as we explore the moons of Jupiter, which will eventually become history as we move to another world in which we're learning magic to use against the invading orcs. Variants on this type may restrict the degree to which such continuity is maintained (e.g., you might not take your equipment, or your skills might translate to something genre-appropriate, or you might not have memories of your past lives but still be functionally the same character).

I take it you're looking for a generic engine. Although I am very fond of Multiverser, I don't really recommend it as a generic engine (it works as such, but is built for multiversal play). In fact, I don't recommend generic engines generally.  You'll get much better play, usually, from an engine built to do what you want to do, such as Sorcerer or Legends of Alyria or Pendragon or The Riddle of Steel (all depending on what you want to do).

So, why did you want a generic game anyway?

--M. J. Young

Yes, a "generic" system, as you call it, is what I'm looking for. The reason is primarily is so I can compare/contrast the ideas I've been working on for the last 15 years or so with what's currently considered the "state of the art", if you will, in RPG's.

I've always been sort of frustrated by the immense complexity of the D&D ruleset and it's derivatives. Of course, I've always used a subset of the rules, but there are always those players who want to use sme particular sub-branch, apparently in an attempt to make the game as overly complex as imagination will allow.

Even the new d20 stuff seems to me to fall down on several fronts, mostly because it's simply a rehash of the earlier rules. The first thing that comes to mind is the six stat character idea, which has had so many things tacked on to it over the years in an attempt to compensate for its fundamental flaws--not to mention the level/class system, the experience system, the damage system etc, etc.

There are two main ideas that keep coming back to me:

1. Narrative games that center around story/interaction rather than mechanics, and

2. The idea that Simulationism allows for a much broader scope.

While I do not subscribe whole-heartedly to the GNS categorizations, they can be useful, at times. My idea of a good game is one that can fairly accurately simulate without being cumbersome in an atmosphere where character development is paramount rather than storyline that can be used in any setting the group fancies. As you can see, this doesn't really fall into any of the GNS categories.

My feeling is that Narrative should not be controlled by the GM, but should evolve naturally from the interaction of the PC's with the setting. The GM may provide *possibilities* for interaction, but not *storylines*. Gamist "challenges" are irrelevant to me. Isn't life enough of a challenge?  Simulationism is great, if well done, but most times devolves into an Aftermath like roll dice/table lookup endless mechanic cycle if it become the main point of playing. Not that there's anything wrong with that if it's what floats ya, but it's not for me.

The scientist in me does love simulating accurately, but the artist/musician in me wants a good story. As a gamer, I invest emotionally in my characters--I'm not out to "beat" a game system, but to develop an interesting life for my character, based on my choices, not the GM's...

But I'm getting a little off track here, or at least diving in a bit deep for the moment. The other side of all this is that the Simulationist in me thinks that a system should be "generic"--it *should* be adaptable to any sort of setting, as basic physics don't really change, even if we do suspend disbelief for magic and superpowers occaisionally. After all , even with magic, superpowers, and highly advanced tech (which all look the same, thank you Mr. Clarke), basic physics still governs the more mundane aspects of any particular universe.

Anyway, I'm looking for prior work to compare to, as my biggest stumbling block right now is:

1. Should I stick with my original 3d10 stat system, or

2. Should I go with a Window-like die ladder?

I really like Lininger's system, especially his ideas about character generation (random number rolling always seemed counter-intuitive to me), the Shebang! notation idea, his Luck ideas, and his conflict resolution systems. It works simply and well, and although some people don't like the "chunkyness" of the ladder system, I've added a couple of rungs (d2, d%) and calculated the percentage of failure at various target numbers in a spreadsheet, and I'm pleased with the results. The problem comes in when I start to consider things like "Spell Points", "Life Points", "Speed", etc. Here's when I start wishing for a bit more in the way of granularity.

The way my system is currently constructed, there are 12 "cardinal" or "inherent" stats that are used to derive secondary traits and the number of skills a character may have available. The original math I was using (based on the 3d10) above lends itself well to calculating these secondary stats (like Spell/Power points, Speed, etc) which I feel should be derived from the character's inherent abilities. For example, a physically robust person *should* have more "Life Points" than a couch potato, and magical ability should be tied to more than just mental ability.

The thing that worries me is that I might be introducing a level of complexity that even *I* am uncomfortable with. One idea I'm toying with is using the 3d10 stats system, and then converting it down to a ladder system (I'll need to crunch numbers here), which would make for robust (and complex) character creation but easier play at the expense of even more math.

The other idea is to simply present both systems and let the users decide which to use...

When I'm finished with all of this, the idea is to make it freely available in the same way the The Window is (PDF file for free download), though I may do a small high-quality print run for the gits and shiggles.

BTW, my system is called "Tapestry"...though it hasn't ever been made public, I've been working on it (very infrequently) since about 1988, but now it's actually close to becoming a reality!

-Michael Amper (formerly of d8 magazine)

Someone else who struggles with the same difficulties as me!
I was sure I wasn't the only one struggling to find a balance/harmony of narrative evolution and 'reality' simulation that does not interfere with it.

Pleased to meet you Amper best of luck with 'Tapestry' I look forward to seeing it.

Peejay

It's hard to give examples, or help on parts of a design if you don't relate what it is you're looking for. If you say just a good generic design, I'd point you to the many available. Have you seen JAGS, by chance? The point is that if that's what you're after, then why don't you just use one of them? Rather, what is it that you think needs improvement in these games (use GURPS or whatever you know for reference)?

Because without that context, how can we tell you what's "Good" and what's not?

Have you seen:
Fuzion
Action!
Hero System
Fudge
Active Exploits
Risus
CORPS
Tri-Stat
EABA
Epic
Pocket Universe

Here's a list of a couple hundred free Generic RPGs: http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/freerpgs/bykeyword/universal.html

If we know what you think is good, that would narrow things down quite a bit.

Mike

Well, I was trying to avoid talking too much about what *I* think is good, as I was just hoping to get a quick take on which generic systems are considered the "best" or "most popular" out there these days...of course, then I started talking anyway...

I have played Hero System in the past. It's OK, but the ads/disads system puts me off a bit. I find it tends to push players toward taking disadvantages they don't really want just to bump up other scores.

Recently, I came across some info on Fudge and Risus, so I checked them out briefly. Neither seemed to really work for me. Same goes for GURPS. I don't have any real specifics at the moment--suffice it to say that none of those three "clicked" with me.

Kim's list is cool, but way too large to be of much help except for as a reference if you're looking for something in particular.

Let me just say that personally, I think Scott Lininger's The Window is probably the best thing I've seen so far, and most of the few qualms I have about it are easily resolved. I really think it needs to be a *little* more Simulationist--however, the very nature of The Window doesn't lend itself to adding Simulationism to it without fundamentally discarding its most central tenets of simplicity and Narrative.

Of course, conversely, everytime I start to think about "realistic" or "believeable" modelling, I start a downward spiral of Simulation Complexity that's very hard to turn away from.I think that probably the biggest thing I'm struggling with is that roll-over systems, in general, seem to lead to overwhelming complexity in the form of describing every possible "skill" ad infinitum--whereas a roll-under system offers benefits in the form of contest rolls and the like.

It could be that I'm just overthinking it, but I'd like to see some recommendations of other important systems that I can review. I'd rather not prematurely come to the conclusion that Narrativism=Simplicity and Simulationism=Complexity and Never The Twain Shall Meet, but more and more, I find myself thinking that way...

Hmmm... you seem to be primarily agonizing over the randomizer.  If that's the case, I'd recommend checking out games that aren't generic - most randomizers are pretty generic anyway.

*****

Easily accessible examples:
I know some of these have already been mentioned and reviewed, but they are included for completion.

Dice pool systems: Shadowrun or any White-Wolf game (though, I'd pick a later one as they are more streamlined... or Changeling, just because I think the nightmare dice are kinda clever).

d+/- systems:  Feng Shui, Ars Magica, FUDGE (they're all rather different).  The 4th edition of Ars Magica is free to download from www.rpgnow.com.

Flat curve roll-over/roll-high:  D20 whatever, Fuzion/Cyberpunk.  I personally find Cyberpunk a fascinating example, it has the standard stat/skill split, it's rather old, very simple yet functional, and the high chance of fumble/critical matches up very well with the Cyberpunk 'your life is crap, and you could die at any moment' feel.

Flat curve roll-under/roll-low:  AD&D attack rolls, or most any percentile system such as Chaosium's Call of Cthulhu.

Bell curve roll-over:  Hero

Bell curve roll-under:  GURPS

Dice step:  Well, the Window (heh).  Earthdawn is a good example, but is so terribly out-of-print that I shouldn't have mentioned it.

Combinations:  Roll and keep (7th Sea, L5R), and Dice step plus dice pool (Deadlands is also freely available from rpgnow).

There are obviously a lot more variations in randomizer approaches, but that's the big stuff that comes to mind.  I'd also check out John Kim's Dice Mechanics article, where he goes into detail on this subject.

*****

Big things to consider are (you've stated an interest in realism, how you answer these questions will determine what you think is realistic):

1.  How much of the resolution you feel should be randomizer and how much should be trait? Should the highly skilled character consistently defeat the poorly skilled character is a contest (Feng Shui)?  Or should a poorly skilled character have a decent fighting chance based on the decisions they make (AD&D)?

2.  How much swing in the randomizer do you want (bell curve versus flat)?  This decision will heavily impact question #1.  To help answer this you might want to consider what role you think the randomizer plays in resolution.  Does the randomizer reflect luck?  does it reflect how on-his-game the character is?  is it how much God gives a crap about what the character is doing?  is it soley to include a random element for the sake of tension?  is it something else?

3.  What range of results do you want?  Can a poorly skilled character accomplish the same incredible feats as a highly skilled character (open-ended or auto fail/success)?  If so, with the same frequency (D20), or less often (Deadlands)?  Do you want fumbles? and again how frequent? and should the frequency vary with skill?

4.  Do you want degrees of success?  If so, do you want them in clearly defined levels (Storyteller, where two success is blah better than one), or more open to interpretation (GURPS, where the difference doesn't mean much until it hits 10)?  Conventional wisdom around these parts is that degrees of success are important for nar-oriented games because the randomizer is often used to aid description and the direction of events (I'm still trying to decide if I agree).

5.  And of course, does the randomizer 'feel right' when you play with it?

Quote from: crucielBig things to consider are (you've stated an interest in realism, how you answer these questions will determine what you think is realistic):

1.  How much of the resolution you feel should be randomizer and how much should be trait? Should the highly skilled character consistently defeat the poorly skilled character is a contest (Feng Shui)?  Or should a poorly skilled character have a decent fighting chance based on the decisions they make (AD&D)?

2.  How much swing in the randomizer do you want (bell curve versus flat)?  This decision will heavily impact question #1.  To help answer this you might want to consider what role you think the randomizer plays in resolution.  Does the randomizer reflect luck?  does it reflect how on-his-game the character is?  is it how much God gives a crap about what the character is doing?  is it soley to include a random element for the sake of tension?  is it something else?

3.  What range of results do you want?  Can a poorly skilled character accomplish the same incredible feats as a highly skilled character (open-ended or auto fail/success)?  If so, with the same frequency (D20), or less often (Deadlands)?  Do you want fumbles? and again how frequent? and should the frequency vary with skill?

All three of these are really different sides of the same die, so to speak. A highly skilled character and/or a character with a high stat should certainly succeed more often than a relatively unskilled character and/or a character with lower stat(s). However, the inferior character should still have a chance. To paraphrase Lynn Thompson (I think), the willingness to use a weapon and the speed of deployment can easily invalidate the finest training. IMO, this is the most important thing radomizers bring to the gaming experience, and reason enough in itself to use randomizers.

Also, for this reason, I think that while bell curves are appropriate for character generation, they can very easily be inappropriate for skill/stat checks, though perhaps if the math is worked out, they may be ok. Skill/stat checks, as far as I am concerned, should be on a linear scale--the math is easier, and it simply makes more sense.

If the system is well designed, all of these concerns should resolve naturally.

Quote4.  Do you want degrees of success?  If so, do you want them in clearly defined levels (Storyteller, where two success is blah better than one), or more open to interpretation (GURPS, where the difference doesn't mean much until it hits 10)?  Conventional wisdom around these parts is that degrees of success are important for nar-oriented games because the randomizer is often used to aid description and the direction of events (I'm still trying to decide if I agree).

5.  And of course, does the randomizer 'feel right' when you play with it?

I'm not sure that "degrees of success" can be effectively codified. While I do think they can be a strong addition to a game, I also think that "degrees" are best left to the discretion of the GM. I do agree that they can be very useful for narrative.

Michael (Mikes of the world unite: Mike Power!),

Looking at your post, I see only a couple of things that tell us anything.

1) The Hero comment was a good one. Many people don't like that effect you mention. But do you like the level of detail that Hero allows? More importantly, do you like the "effects first" mode of power design in the game? The idea that all powers are "special effects" laid over a single set of mechanics?

2) Apparently The Window doesn't have enough detail. You want the system to consider things more finely. OK, still leaves a lot of questions. Do you object to the Scene Resolution methods they talk about? Would you feel that it would be better if they broke things down in terms of the action, into smaller parts?

Fudge and GURPS are so different that to say that neither "clicked" doesn't tell us anything.

I think that the best generic designs out there, the designs that one most needs to look at aren't actually generic. That is, Hero Quest isn't generic, yet I'd look to it for a game that could be used to do most things, and may do them at the level that you might like (I've got that system on the brain lately, however, so that might be just my bias). Have you looked at Story Engine? It's available free as Story Bones. Are these designs also to undetailed or imprecise?

Mike

Based on your comments I've been trying to think of which generic system to refer you to...  I didn't come up with anything better that D20 (provided you look at it with a much greater trait range like 1 - 40); or a sorta inverted version of the Window, like Deadlands without the die pool portion (higher die is better; roll high; if you roll the max on the die reroll and add); or Basic Role-Playing.

I think Mike's suggestion of Hero Quest fits the bill better.  Though, this comment:

Quote from: MichaelHowever, the inferior character should still have a chance.

indicates a need for something open-ended or with automatic successes.  My understanding of Hero Quest is limitted, but I don't think it has either of these (correct me if I'm wrong).  Well, I assume it doesn't have to be a perfect fit - you're just looking for references, not a complete system.

if you are after a generic system, it is possible to strip down the Storyteller system and use that - look at the core rules of any three ST books (say, mage, aberrant and exalted) and the basics (like everything bar special effects and abilities) is the same.

you have to change some skills, yes, and you have a decent framework upon which you can build you powers, with _loads_ of reference material ready to draw on.

I also really, really liked how the Window grabbed me. The windowrpg mailing list at yahoo-groups also has some (varying quality) stuff at their file section. I played it (attempting to change from Active Exploits Diceless to a system with dice), and it actually worked well. (You need your people cool with the lighter playing style, though; my Hackmaster/D&D-lovin' friend had to leave the advanture, as this style didn't jibe with his.) So, if you're already geared up with interest over the Window, go with it.

QuoteI really think it needs to be a *little* more Simulationist... Of course, conversely, everytime I start to think about "realistic" or "believeable" modelling, I start a downward spiral of Simulation Complexity that's very hard to turn away from...

I think that the Window is very much Simulationist, but in terms of *realism* it's more flexible. Basic Window doesn't scale precisely, and this is an issue for some GMs; if you create a consistent system for the ladder/task-numbers that makes you happy, you're there. (I recommend modifying their actual die based on how appropriate their skill is for the task, and then modifying the TN on some coarse scale - "Easy/Hard/Wicked" - based on the extraneous complications of the task.)

You mentioned liking "12 cardinal stats", and the Window has 6. Oddly enough, I preferred zero. <g> I found it very easy to remember that all players have a default "Average" rating on these (or whatever other cardinal stats they may have), and let them increase these stats if they mentioned them in particular. So in addition to a consistent TN/ladder, figure out a list of suggested traits/"experiences" players should consider when listing all their Traits.

QuoteTo paraphrase Lynn Thompson (I think), the willingness to use a weapon and the speed of deployment can easily invalidate the finest training. IMO, this is the most important thing radomizers bring to the gaming experience, and reason enough in itself to use randomizers.

There's a lot to be said for randomizers and long-shot probabilities, but personally I find that (a) the players are usually keen to engineer their own "long-shot" solutions for fixing probabilities, and (b) players are unconsciously keen on manufactring their own critical fumbles, whether they realize it or not. Also, the "whiff" factor (a wicked strong character messing up a very basic task) is sometimes not humorous but deprotagonizing. So there's certainly a question of how much of a "chance" you want to give the less-skilled party.

Given that I play diceless, it would seem problematic of Strong Dude will always, deterministically, give Weakling a beating. However, to counter this:
(1) Currency: easily gotten/spent points can encourage dramatic-failure/enable dramatic-successes.
(2) The canonical Amber (or is it Nobilis?) example. You know the one:

QuoteIf two players are fighting, and one has a higher Warfare stat, that superior player should always win. However, if the "weaker" player throws his rival into a river and forces the fight to happen under water, then the relevant state is no longer Warfare, but Stamina (so having a higher relevant skill isn't as important as defining your task the right way).

(3) If a player draws on a guy from behind is back, or before the other guy draws, then that fight is reasonably over. Remind them about this fact.