You've probably noticed that there aren't any "used" cars anymore. They're all "pre-owned." This trend was started by the upscale car companies to combat the negative connotation associated with the former term.

I'm working on a settingless system. In planning my marketing strategy (and making initial comments about the project), I've been referring to it as "multi-genre" as opposed to "generic." Frankly, "generic" just grates on me. Generic, to my mind, implies blandness and averageness. Multi-genre focuses on the system's strengths, i.e., that it can be used with any setting.

Thoughts on my parsing effort? Does it imply anything negative? Any better terms you can think of?

My first thought about "multi-genre" is a game that allows to play in a limited number of several different genres. This may be fine if you want to produce a more limited generic RPG (like Feng Shui with its limited number of timelines), but otherwise it wouldn't be a desired association. However, I'm not a native English speaker, so neither may I be part of your primary target audience, nor am I the best person to ask about such things.

In German, the common adjective for such games is "universal", and I haven't seen this term yet in connection with English RPGs. It would be new and I don't see any negative associations with this term, so this could be a good substitution for "generic".

- Stefan

StefanS wrote:
In German, the common adjective for such games is "universal", and I haven't seen this term yet in connection with English RPGs. It would be new and I don't see any negative associations with this term, so this could be a good substitution for "generic".

- Stefan

I've got to agree with Stefan- "Multi Genre", while it breaks the mold, also puts an image in my mind of a source book with X chapters, each devoted to a specific genre, not neccesarily a wide open system that says "Go to it!".

Now then, if you like Multi Genre (and it is different in a spiffy cool way), you could go ahead and outline say your five favorite genres using the system and providing bits & pieces for running them. Lay out some of the framework and cap it all off with a final chapter about how to use the system to construct a player's own world & genre like the ones listed.
Only drawback I see to that is the idea that somehow the genres and material covered by you is "official" or what not, and players will simply choose from among them, but thats not so bad- gives them something to jump right in to without having to put as much work as building their genre, gives them something to grow into.

I think they're right, Justin: "multi-genre" is something like Rifts or Torg or some other game in which several genres are simultaneously engaged and available in the setting/system.

IMHO, "Universal" is the term used for rules that apply as written to, well, all universes (that have physics consistent with each other, to be pedantic). Universal rules are sufficiently detailed to model whatever situation is required, irrespective of genre conventions, variations in size or capability of actors, or elements of plot or character significance. Hero is universal because its rules are the same for a pack of mice or for a team of superheroes.

"Generic" is used more to refer to rules which form a foundational system, to which one would often add details or with which one would use the fundamental systems to build the actual play systems available to players (as opposed to content creators or GMs). d20 is generic because, in its "core rules," one can not actually model anything genre-specific; one must add on systems (ex: races, classes, feats) to capture the elements of situation or setting that define the genre.

That's how I think of them, anyway; and that's why my system anagram's first term in "Generic." (see sig.)

As for how to solve your issues with the connotations of generic... that's a tough one, and I am reluctant to even ponder the negative implications because I love my game's acronym. ;-)
But if I had to sub a word for generic (assuming that's what you really have, not universal), then I would go with "fundamental," "elemental," or "base."

Hmmm.... what could I change "system" to that starts with a T? (GLASS -> BLAST). :-)

HTH;
David

For what it's worth, Justin, I like Multi Genre and I like it because it implies that it is good for a finite set of genres.  To me, that seems way more intellectually and artistically honest than saying that your system can do anything, because no system is really and truly universal in the absolute sense.  If the world of customers were made up of carbon copies of me, I'd like seeing a "Multi Genre" game that clearly outlines what it's good for.  Such a scheme also allows you to seamlessly present your system's strong points without seeming like the ad copy only exists to push sales.

Hey Justin,

I agree with Joshua, and here's why. I'm willing to bet that you have some idea of the various genres that you think would be most or especially appropriate for your text (whether they have been a conscious part of your design effort, or not). Without knowing anything about what you're working on, I strongly suspect that providing some of these example genres, or examples of extant settings, with your text would probably strengthen it by providing immediate "hooks" for play, and also fulfill the limited interpretation of the word "Multi-Genre."

'Course, I also just like the word Multi-Genre more.

Multi Genre feels clumsy to me. I agree that Generic is like using Cheap instead of Frugal. Universal sounds like what you are looking for.

    Personally I think that multi-genre sounds better, and is ultimately more honest than genric. I do have to agree that universal has a good ring to it as well. Ultimately, if you do use universal it is possible that people will associate the game's type with GURPS, which has a huge number of books to cover all different sorts of gameplay, at least in the USA.
    Still, being as I think I've been calling my own books "generic" since the get go, I would have to say that in the end people will use or not use your materials based on how good a job you do with them, not what catch word or phrase you use to describe them. Usually people are more interested if you have some example adventures/settings that come with the books whether or not they are supposed to be general rules or not.
    I think I like the fact that you brought this up more than anything else though, I hadn't really thought about it before. As a result I think I may be changing my own reference to my game books in the future. There does seem to be a sort of opposition to games that are labeled "Generic," I've encountered it a few times before. People appear to have the impression that the role playing books under these sorts of title are undesireable because they do not provide much in the way of settings or adventures to start out with.