General views on Universal systems ?

[Autocrat]

Alright.... I'll face the fact that out of the forums I've been to, and out of all the individuals, less than 10% seem to have any interest in Generic or universal rules.  Thats fine.

  The bit that really does worry me is that people seem to read things that I haven't said...... i.e. modular.  When did I say modular?
For that matter, when did I say the be all and end all, or the ultimate?

  Also, the rules aren't complex, they are the exact opposite.  You choose the resolution you want, and you use that through out, no matter what you do, be it skills, talents, powers, mutations, spells, special combat techniques, what ever, the method is the same:

Base Stat  +  Skill/Talent/Spell  + Difficulty  +  Opt. Modifiers = TN

Doesn't matter whether you use D100, Multiple Die or No die, the method is still the same!
How can that be complicated?
If it is a positive, you add it, a negative, you subtract it.  High numbers mean more, low numbers mean less.  No strange multiples, abstractions, reversals or what have you in certain other RPG's.  Simple.

  And before any one mentions the idea of l;evels of detail, these are replacements, not additions, to the process.... so the Skill would be Swords, or Big Swords, or Long Sword, not all of the above!

  So, lets look at a standard RPG that everyone knows, and make the obvious comparisions, so that its clear.

AD&D

Herioc, slightly epic, adventure and action, Fantasy, Historical (in some cases)

D20, = or over system
Higher the stat, the better (apart from Armour Class & Thac0)
Skills can have modifiers.
Rules for most common situations
Rules for period armour & Weapons (roughly stoneage to renaissance)
Rules for Magic (similar variations, yet offers slight differences)
Rules for hit locations and critical hits.


Now imagine having that, yet having skills that tie in with a different setting, say 1920 america.  Same goes for the equipment available.  Lets update the vehicles as well.
Now, the harder part is altering the classes, yet it's still do-able, just lower the Hit Die they get, remember that the Stats will be altered as well, hmmm... not to shabby, not to much hard work.

Shame you had to do it all!
Strange thing is, you can do that with most systems!
All it takes is application and effort, thats it.  A simplistic view, yet considering I've had to convert AD&D, Shadowrun, Cuperpunk, WOD and Cthulu, I'd say that it's fairly easy with that type of game.
I'll admit it may get difficult with some systems, but those are specifically designed as one offs, only to deal with certain things.... and to be honest, often require more learning than anything I'd put in print!



  So, maybe I'm not asking the right questions.... may be I should be asking.... Why don't you like it.... rather than asking for factual ideas, I should refer to preference, because thats all I get, and more importantly, thats what matters the most!

Still, I'm going to bow my head and accept that I'm in a minority, that no matter what I say or do, people will automatically negate what is said or presented, and put their own statements in my place.  It's happened so far, and it will keep happening.

So saying, I'll try hard not to mention generic, universal or flexible again.

So thank you all for the posts, yet I doubt if it's worth continueing, as some ne said, the sacks already been beaten empty, so why do it all again without progressing any further?

[John Kim]

HarnMaster is more down-to-earth, as reflected in the campaign I played in.  It is more about fitting into society rather than finding a spiritual destiny.

Ok.  So what part of the game mechanics are about fitting into society?  I haven't looked through Harn recently enough to have the answer at my fingertips so I'm unsure whether there is or there isn't.

If I looked at a character sheet from your recent campaign, what would I see that indicates "aha...this campaign was about fitting into society"?  Anything?  

Sure.  You'd see things like his family background, position in his family, and estrangement, and the distinction of family skills and occupational skills.  You'd see that he was born on Agrazar 25, which means that he has sun sign Nadai, The Salamander.  This is an association within the world (essentially like zodiac sign) which has a tangible effect on play.  You'd see that he was a priest of Agrik, which implies a certain social role.  This requires him to restore piety points by social ritual functions such as high mass.  You'd see his financial situation.  

However, my impression is that they were dissatisfied with how other game systems handled role-playing in Harn.  So HarnMaster was developed specifically to address what different was desired for adventures in Harn.  

Excellent.  As it should be.  So what specifically was developed that demonstrates what's different about adventures in Harn.  My perception is the whole thing is nothing more than a different perspective of "modeling reality" as a dozen dozen other games have done.  

Well, it fits into the class of "modelling reality" games -- so in a broad sense that is true.  But there are many specific features of Harn which were desired.

For example, HM has random character generation tailored to Harn.  This is important because it allows imbalances.  For example, TROS has a priority-based system, similar in principle to a point system.  This means that noble characters will be less competant than commoners.  This promotes an egalitarian attitude in play, which would be contrary to the social order of Harn.  Thus, HM has no compensation for being common.  HM also has suggestions on building families or groups with related social class, which can be used to avoid the noble/commoner divide.  

Combat is gritty and gory, and specifically emphasizes the difficult nature of healing.  In nearly all RPGs (including GURPS and TROS), any wound short of dismemberment will eventually heal fully given time as long as it doesn't kill you.  In HM, there is emphasis on permanent impairment from wounds and infection of wounds during healing.  This emphasizes the consequences of violence rather than heroism.  

All of this amounts to a more gritty approach.  In HM as compared to TROS, there are no big bonuses for following destiny or drive.  So play tends to be more about compromising of one's principles and taking the expedient approach, rather than heroic action.  There are many people who don't like this tone, but it definitely has meaning.

(Incidentally, if we want to discuss HarnMaster more, it should probably be split off into another topic.)

[M. J. Young]

I thought that in most areas of design and creation, the ideal was to get as close to perfection as possible.  Of course, that is taking the techological design view, not the creative arts dewsign view!

Having been cited as (co-)creator of one of the more (critically) accepted more universal systems, let me weigh in and try to clarify a few things.

At the dawn of the nineteenth century, the intellectuals who framed the Constitution believed in something they called capital-R Reason; it was believed that if rational men got together and honestly debated any issue, they would eventually discover that they all agreed on the best answer, because Reason would have only one answer to every problem.

That notion has faded from the world; it failed to take into account something much more significant, Values. The abolitionists are the slavers were never going to come to a single solution dictated by Reason because they held different Values. For one side, the economic realities outweighed any supposed social or ethical issues involved, and for the other the economic realities could not be allowed to influence the real question.

The goal of a universal system is to attempt to address all worlds, all play styles, all preferences, in one system. It is not a possible goal; that said, you have agreed that you're not really headed that direction.

As a side clarification, you say that your system is not "modular", and you don't know where the idea originated that it was. I think it comes from aspects like this:

* Variable Resolution methods. - Different people like different things, yet to be honest, the differences are often not known. For the majority, it's the packaging and experience, not the system that made the difference. Even so, I think I have it so that the game will perform using D100 Roll under, Multiple Die or No Die, with the obvious Crit's, DoS stuff as well.

What this appears to mean is that the game will provide a percentile mechanic, a die pool mechanic, a non-fortune mechanic, and several others, and the players will decide which one to use. Thus one game of Autocrat RPG will be played with D20's while another will be played with percentiles. This is what is meant by modular--you plug in those parts of the rules that you want to use, and unplug those which don't.

It's also what is meant by the complexity issue. Complexity in itself is not bad design; it is unnecessary complexity that is bad. In this case, if you're going to offer a half dozen different resolution systems, you're also going to have to explain in every section of the game how it works in connection with each of those resolution systems. What is a crit in percentile? What is a crit in dice pool? How do you determine spell success in non-fortune play? All of these questions would have to be answered somewhere; this leads to rules bloat, as a great proportion of the rules you are forced to include to handle the die pool system don't matter to me if I'm using the percentile system--but I might not know that until after I've read them.

Modular is not necessarily bad. To some degree, Multiverser uses a toolbox approach--we tell referees that they can determine the outcome of a situation using any of several approaches, and they should pick the one that best fits at the moment. It's also partly modular, in a very strange manner to which I will return in a moment.

I would ask which universal and generic systems you've already examined. It seems to me that Multiverser does most of what you're suggesting; that Universalis does a fair amount of it; that Fudge certainly offers a lot of these features. Re-inventing the wheel is a popular pastime among RPG designers, as we often don't know what's already been done in the field (Fantasy Heartbreakers are symptomatic of this, but there are other symptoms). Before you attempt to design something that does what you want, at least look to see how the problem has been addressed before now.

On the modularity of Multiverser, I think this may be instructive in the general question; see, although I designed a system that was intended to be completely universal, I agree that system matters and that it is important to design systems that express their settings. In recognition of this, Multiverser includes a sub-system that enables its player characters to become characters in other games. People miss this--they think I mean that it enables referees to steal settings and use them for Multiverser, and I don't mean that. When Dark Omen Games releases Legends of Alyria this year, there will be an appendix in the back which provides a way for Multiverser player characters to become Alyria player characters, subject to all the rules in that game system, with Multiverser providing a (very) few cover points that are outside Alyria's system but might be brought into play by Multiverser player characters. The point is made that Alyria does what it does extremely well, and the only way Multiverser can do that is in essence by importing Alyria into itself, stating that as long as the character is in this world, these are the rules in this world. (We've done this unofficially for a number of games; Legends of Alyria is the first one for which we have an agreement with the owner regarding the shared use of content.)

That's why people around here don't much care for most "universal" or "generic" systems: a system should do what it does well, and shouldn't attempt to do things which conflict with that. What Multiverser does well, I think, is make possible a game in which the rules shift to match the world, such that the integrity of the world and the integrity of the characters are both maintained.

In clarification of the categories of universal games

1. The "One-True-System." A perfect system that works for all 3 GNS modes.
2. A system that can be used for any setting or genre, like GURPS or FUDGE.
3. A system like Multiverser, which allows you to play in different settings. (I know that sounds alot like #2, but I don't remember exactly what was said in the topic, I just remember that there was a third category which involved Multiverser.)

Multiverser's distinction is that play proceeds in many different and distinct worlds of differing genres/milieus; the rules make it possible to play the same game while moving between universes this way, from science fiction to swords & sorcery to horror to whatever else you want to play. There is also a "universal" approach typified by Rifts, in which all types of universes blend into one (Shadowrun might have some of this, mixing fantasy elements into a futuristic post-apocalyptic world, but that's just a sudden thought on my part and I don't know if it's accurate). Thus Rifts is one world that is everything, GURPS is any one world for which you want to create characters, and Multiverser is all different kinds of worlds as part of continuing play.

If I didn't already say so, I agree with most of what Ralph has said on this issue, and appreciate his comments on Multiverser. Game systems do work better if they have focus.

I hope this is helpful.

--M. J. Young

[Mike Holmes]

OK, Autocrat, unfortunately you pushed the "Universal" hotbutton, when you've now stated that you want something more limited. What might better be called "generic" in that I think that you mean to say that the system can be applied to any element of any genre equally. I think people should note that this is what he's talking about now.

So, the question then it what about generic games? Do people have problems with them? Well, it all depends on just how generic. That is, genre is composed of all sorts of things. And the question is does the system in question reall intend to address all of them, or some subset?

For example, does GURPS cover Shreyas' Fairies? Why not? If it were truely generic, wouldn't in be able to deal with that? As MJ puts it, it's like Values. Each generic game assumes that certain things are consistent across the genres being played. For instance, ever note how all of them assume humans as the "base" creature? What if there are no humans in the setting? The argument is that we then have a comparison to something familiar, but what if the game is about being in unfamiliar territory? There are genre's like that. So these "generic" games aren't addressing these particular variables.

What variables do they maintain as important? Well, first they tend to have combat systems, and be focused on them. Indicating that in whatever genre you play in, combat will be important.

Mike's Standard Rant #3: Combat Systems

But they don't give as much detail to, say, international diplomacy. So if the game is really about international diplomacy, will the game be generic to it?

OK, so you admit that no game is going to cover everything. But the problem becomes that in trying to cover as much as possible, which they do attempt, they don't specifically cover any particular genre well. Give me any generic game, and any genre that it's theoretically useful for, and I'll give you a game that does that genre better, or a rule that could be added that would make the generic game better for it. Proving it's not the best game right there.

Actually, I agree with you that one can successfully play a generic game, just like you can use your four tools to accomplish anything. But tell me this, if you have just your four tools, and there's a plasma torch right there next to you waiting to be used, the perfect tool for the job, are you still going to use the butane lighter? If you do, are you sure it's not an act of bravado (who are you anyhow, McGuyver)? Are you sure that it's producing the best product in the end? Why use the harder to employ tool when the other is on hand.

Now, I'm of the belief that there are times where the generic tool is probably as good as anything available for the task ahead of you. So, given that case, when nothing better is available, I think that generic games are fine for forging ahead. But I think that these moments are actually pretty rare.

Because there are some generic games out there that do better because they don't try to cover all the presumed axes. Take Sorcerer for instance. Not often thought of as generic, play is all about summoning and binding demons and such. But it has no set setting. So in many ways it's generic. When do you use Sorcerer? When you want to play in some particularly neat setting of your own design, and you want to ask the question "How far would the characters go to get what they want?"

Basically, if you look around, you'll find that games that are just as talorable have been created that more closely fit your needs. So the traditional Combat System generic model is pretty much obsolete at this point, except perhaps as a tool kit from which to actually design other games (see FUDGE, and less, HERO System).

Now, it's absolutely inarguable that there's some slight benefit from not having to learn a new system from game to game. But interestingly, the systems that tend to be generic are actually heavy. It can only be limited experience that would prompt you to say that D20, GURPS and Hero System are simple systmes. Compare the number of pages that you have to read in any of these (even GURPS Lite is 32 or something, and that's so limited it's laughable), to a game like MLWM, InSpectres, etc, which all match their genres so tightly that they can't be surpassed for playing in them.

So, I guess the question is whether the slight value added here really makes these games worth playing. Don't get me wrong, I love Hero System, and just played recently, in fact (Supers). But I love it because I'm very into exploration of system.

However, I fully realize that, for the same reason that it's a beautiful engine for such exploration, it's also just as detestable to some because of it. Generic games are GM games. By that I mean to say that it's folks like us, GMs, like to tinker with them thinking about the things that we "could" do with them. But when it gets down to actually playing, often the thought experiment doesn't equal the result. Because the players can't see inside our heads, and the system isn't really telling them what sort of play we're looking for. So instead you get some ghost of the play that you were looking for.

That's my observation, and that of a lot of people here. I note that you peg us as some sort of "Forum User" group, as if we don't have regular game groups, and don't actually play face to face. This couldn't be further from the truth. We're not banding here to come up with abstruse theories just to feel superior or something. My play, and I know that of others, has been creatly improved by the observations that we "forum posters" have made. So realize that we're no different than you, other than having had different experiences with RPGs, and you'll be able to understand what we're saying better. I'm detecting quite a bit of an "I'm not one of you guys" attitude. Which just isn't meritied.

Mike

[Valamir]

OK, Autocrat, unfortunately you pushed the "Universal" hotbutton, when you've now stated that you want something more limited. What might better be called "generic" in that I think that you mean to say that the system can be applied to any element of any genre equally. I think people should note that this is what he's talking about now.

So, the question then it what about generic games? Do people have problems with them?

Just for the record, I see very little value in the Universal / Generic distinction.  In any event most of my objections apply equally to either.

[Mike Holmes]

Depends on the definitions. Most people are assuming that Universal implies that everyone can use it for every game equally. While Generic as I'm putting it forth here (and as it's been proposed before) means that the game has some slant to it, but that that slant can be put into many different genres.

Hence Sorcerer would never claim to be Universal, in fact in some ways it's very specific of course. But Sorcerer can do Western, Sci-Fi, Fantasy, pretty much any genre you like with equal aplomb. So it's generic in some very significant ways.

Now, there are games like GURPS and Hero System that people say intend to be Universal by the above definition. But Marco and others disagree, and say that generic as defined above is all that's implied. That the Universal in GURPS title only means what I've said Generic means above. That nobody claims that their games are Universal by the above description.

I'm not here to argue any of that. The point is that Autocrat has stated clearly above that he doesn't mean Universal in the definition above, but instead generic. So, further criticisms should at least not discuss the Universal desriptor.

What you're attacking, and what I halfway agree with is that games like GURPS and Hero System are nothing but generic. That is, in trying to "accurately" cover all genres, they miss out on anything other than the base simulation of these things (and incidentally end up by tradition focusing on combat). Sorcerer doesn't fall into this category, because it's got it's generic slants, and a premise. D20 has it's generic slants and loads of player challenge (in theory). Do your criticisms apply to Sorcerer? If not it'e because the definition as generic allows us to disect these things more closely.

Universalis, OTOH, is pretty much only generic. Where I would argue that it's superior to other generic RPGs is in that it actually manages to avoid those accidental biases for the most part - any brought in are the player's own. That said, and I've said this before, any "premise" or "challenge" that exists in the game are created by players. As such they are no different than any game like GURPS or Hero System. I'd feel hypocritical saying otherwise, personally.

Still, Universalis is indispensible because it does generic things in a unique way. The other really big problem with other generic games is that they tend to approach their problems from identical angles. Do I play GURPS or Hero System or Action! or Fuzion or what? So, in that way, the "Typical Generic" system has been done, and anything else is just refinements.

So I think that many of your criticisms are valid, just that they overstate the case. The "retreat" from interesting premises of system do not make these games unplayable. Bland perhaps, but they're perfectly serviceable.

Mike

[Valamir]

Well, I never said unplayable.  Uninteresting...yes, I would put my name to that...which seems pretty synonomous with your use of "bland" (though I suspect I would more extreme in degree than you on this).

But I still find the Universal/Generic distinction to be of limited value precisely because no one (reasonably) would try to lay claim to the definition of Universal that's been put forth.  Which means ALL of these games are "generic" under this naming scheme.  Which means one can simply find and replace Universal with Generic in this entire thread, and have exactly the same result.  Hense...little value.

But to state it differently, and return to my pie example.

a good design must
a) slice the pie somewhere, and
b) have a defineable reason for why the designer sliced it where he did.

My problem with Universal/Generic games is that they refuse to do 1, the other or both.

They either deny that the pie needs to be sliced at all, or they slice it, but for no good reason other than convenience or historical precedent.

So no, I don't think Sorcerer is a good generic game, because I would never put Sorcerer in the generic category to begin with.  It slices the pie quite plainly.  It draws the line in the sand and says "THIS is what I'm about" and it drives the game mechanics full bore at that mission statement.


And no, before anyone asks, I don't consider "to be rules light", "to be non genre specific", or "to model reality" to be valid lines to draw in the sand or slices of the pie.

Discussion of the whys and wherefors, should be relegated to another thread entirely.

[John Kim]

a good design must
a) slice the pie somewhere, and
b) have a defineable reason for why the designer sliced it where he did.

My problem with Universal/Generic games is that they refuse to do 1, the other or both.  
...
And no, before anyone asks, I don't consider "to be rules light", "to be non genre specific", or "to model reality" to be valid lines to draw in the sand or slices of the pie.  

I don't think I get the point.  I could care less about lines in the sand.  For example, I like the HERO system -- it is arguably my favorite RPG system (alongside JB007, Ars Magica, and Buffy).  I consider it to be a good design.  It does not have a theoretical essay or explanation for why it is the way it is.  Instead, it was playtested and changed based on play to be the way that the designers and fans like.  I have played it many times and enjoy it greatly.  It is not all things to all people and it doesn't handle every possible genre, but neither does it claim to be.  

As far as I am concerned, this draws a line in the sand.  There are plenty of games which are able to spout verbiage about their theoretical justification, but IMO the proof is in the pudding.  It is up to the theory to explain why the HERO system is so good (in my experience, at least) -- not up to the HERO system to justify itself.

[Mike Holmes]

Your line, his line...you're both talking about preferences here.

Ralph, again, I only made the distinction because people had complained against the definition of Universal that I gave, and which the poster refuted. If you say that Universal doesn't mean that, it doesn't mean that others haven't used that definition. I'm just trying to get those with criticisms that are irrelevant to the thread to stop posting them. If you aren't making the irrelevant claim then you aren't who I'm talking to. The distinction has to be made for the people who you now say are in error as to their definition.

I'd be happy with your definition if you could just get other people to stop using the other one.

You may not have said Unplayable, but you did say:

If the game doesn't slice the pie somewhere, somehow. Then the game is pointless. There is no reason for its existance,...

You did then go on to make some "for me" statements, but this sounds worse than "unplayable" actually. Like people who play are doing some pointless excercise.

Again, I think that you're just stating your preference, but it's come off as something more than that. I mean, you don't play every game that you help design, but you won't help design games like this. So it can't be just about your play - there's an agenda here. If that's not obvious from the ranty tone. In any case, I hope that autocrat sees that this part has only been statements of preference, and not some cogent theoretical argument for why generic games are inherently bad or something. Or have I missed something?

In any case, given this John, I don't see what any of this has to do with theory. By that statement we can see your anit-theory bias showing just as clearly. Ralph doesn't like it. Ralph is pro-theory. Therefore this must be an attack on it by the theory. Check your logic. Your statement doesn't amount to a challenge of System Does Matter, and you know it. Hero System is liked precisely because of it's system, not despite it.

In any case, I think that you guys have run Autocrat off.

Mike

[Mark Johnson]

So, maybe I'm not asking the right questions.... may be I should be asking.... Why don't you like it.... rather than asking for factual ideas, I should refer to preference, because thats all I get, and more importantly, thats what matters the most!

Still, I'm going to bow my head and accept that I'm in a minority, that no matter what I say or do, people will automatically negate what is said or presented, and put their own statements in my place.  It's happened so far, and it will keep happening.

So saying, I'll try hard not to mention generic, universal or flexible again.

So thank you all for the posts, yet I doubt if it's worth continueing, as some ne said, the sacks already been beaten empty, so why do it all again without progressing any further?

What are you looking for?  Validation?

Why not design your dream game and publish it?  Whether it be as web freebie or the 1500 page three volume hardback leather bound compendiums with 50+ genre/game supplements, what do you have to lose?  Only time and money, but its your dream.  What is your dream worth to you?

Start desigining your game.  Post your work-in-progress on a web site.  Get stuck with a problem?  Go to the Indie Game Design forum with a specific question about a specific problem and include a link to your game as it exists.  

Follow your bliss.  You might be surprised where you end up.

Talk Later,
Mark

[Autocrat]

All right then, now I feel calmer and less provocative..... here goes.

So, after all of this, how about if things are worded differently.....

A flexible and general system of mechanics and rules that are simple to understand and follow, that don't vary or get more complicated, that permits players and DM's to choose the level of detail of Characters, Skills, Equipment etc., that work within a variety of settings, genres, flavours, feels, atmospheres etc. designed for the game.

There, is that more acceptable?

I'm still deeply confused by the response I get, and looking at other such threads, I really am quite worried by the reactions that people have towards this sort of thing!
As far as I'm aware, reading the enormous number of posts on this sort of thing, very few people that are interested in general/universal/flexible/modular systems give negative, nasty, despiriting, aggressive or offensive posts about Setting Specific games, or rules that only permit a single method of play, a single set of mechanics etc.  I don't see the screaming out things like restrictive, retentive, limited, short sighted, inhibitive, contrictive, repressed rules or that.
Oh no, not much at all, yet hose that support such games and systems seem to have little problem doing such to us.
Why?
Actually, don't bother!

I'll ask specific questions about specific problems, issues or ideas, and say * to the rest, as people are blatantly biased and non-constructive towards this sort of thing.

So, in future, I will state that the I.N.I. system is a post apocolyptic setting with both archaic & near futuristic technology, Psionics, Arcane, Faith and Conjuration magics, Cybernetics, Netware, Bionics, Bio-genetics, vehicles, Animals, Mechanised units, and a very broad scope of skills.....and hopefully the majority of you will all respond as if the system is indead setting specific and not bash at me.

On a final note, I would like to thank all of you for posting, all comments are read and taken in, (hell, even if I don't like it, theres a use for it!), yet would very much like to thank those that offered insight, defence and explanatory posts, as these were the most useful kind.

Thank you all,
Autocrat!

[timfire]

So, in future, I will state that the I.N.I. system is a post apocolyptic setting with both archaic & near futuristic technology, Psionics, Arcane, Faith and Conjuration magics, Cybernetics, Netware, Bionics, Bio-genetics, vehicles, Animals, Mechanised units, and a very broad scope of skills.....

That's a good one, it made me laugh!