Hi there.

For a long time I tinkered about with existing systems for ideas and story possibilities. I have since become sick of it and a while ago decided to create my own mechanics system using dotty cubes. I like what I've done so far.

However the thing is, should I keep my system hard and generic (like GURPS) or a soft, vague metasystem (like ORE).

Generic allows me to concentrate on a game and make vagaue plug-ins like Skills and Dis/Advantages to handle changes.

Metasystem means I can tailor my engine for setting specifics, leaving a series sophisticated siblings under the same surname.

I'm at the stage of developement where I have an almost-engine, three detailed campaign worlds, two easy-peasy basic campaign worlds, and I need to make a decision one way or another.

In revision:

Hard System: your campaign world's mechanics needs must plug onto the pre-existing engine.

Soft System: each incarnation of the meta-system is moulded and tailored to the individual needs of the specific World.

Do any of you have advice for me?

Thanks,

Cheers,

Chris.

I think this comes periliously close to opinion-polling, which I agree is close to worthless in terms of making a better game. If your personal vision is not sufficient to drive the development of the game, then it will not be sufficient to drive the game into the market either.

That said, I think we can approach this by asking what you want to accomplish with your different settings. Are they 1) simply cool places with potential for different kinds of fundamentally similar adventures, or 2) places that support fundamentally different kinds of stories (from e.g. total bloodshed to total interpersonal romantic issue focus).

This is simplified, of course, but I suggest that the option you prefer should strongly guide your "hard/soft" decision, with option 1 pointing to hard and option 2 to soft.

Mikael wrote:
I think this comes periliously close to opinion-polling, which I agree is close to worthless in terms of making a better game.

Heya,

Welcome back!  I see it's been quite a while since your last post here.  :)

Insect wrote:

Mikael wrote:
I think this comes periliously close to opinion-polling, which I agree is close to worthless in terms of making a better game.

I have already made the game. The answers I want are personal opinions.

GURPS has a soft metasystem -- roll 3d6 under, skills are modifiers to stats, characters are point-built.

As it happens, GURPS includes a harder crust -- the skill lists, advantage/disadvantage lists, stats broken down into two skill stats (dex/int) two mechanics stats (strength/health), and indexes and indexes of special case rules (ranged combat, what you can do in 1 second, etc).

The difference I see between GURPS and ORE is that ORE's soft kernel of mechanics is more interesting than GURPS's soft kernel of mechanics.  Maybe this is why GURPS wrapped there relatively boring soft kernel in a crust.  :)

The crust does get in the way of seeing to the soft centre.  The question is, do you want your game engine kernel to be crusted or uncrusted?  Having the crust there reduces your load if you want worlds with hard rulesets, but makes the rules match the game less well.

I suppose the context should be softer, easier-to-modify kernel.

Ultimately I have the most of a system ready for playtest. I have a world in which they can test drive my system but I have three solid ideas for other game worlds.

Should I rather try and cover all of my ass and modifiers (ala GURPS) or should I go in deep and rewrite the rules for each system incarnation?

I was going to do something like the World of Darkness rules but the styles of the different world vacillate so fantastically, they only have a superficial resemblence to each other.

My current idea is to release a basic, lite system on its own but release release the game worlds with their own rules written in.

This way, the setting and rules are woven together without one overpowering and stilting the other.

The meta system is a skill-based d6 dice pool modified by Stat-like Controls. rolled dice are added up.

5 is the minimum difficulty one needs to roll for a single basic actions. Effects and Manoeuvres add up the difficulty by 5 for each addictional action stacked on.

Special Effects and changes in the system - like magic rules - are detailed where necessary.

This mechanic occurs over 90% of the system with a few marked alterations for Action Sequences (really long rounds and initiative order).

C.

Heya,

Honestly, I'd pick just one setting and stay with that.  Perhaps you can let your playtesters see a preview of each and then take their oppinions into account.  OR you can try to playtest all three worlds.  However, what I would not do, is "try to cover your ass ala GURPS."  Nobody is gonna out-GURPS GURPS.  Stick with one setting, that's your best bet IMHO.

Peace,

-Troy

what Troy means with his first post (not to put words in Troy´s mouth, but this is what I think he means, and it is at least what I mean) is that it is a more interesting question how you would put your system in bed with the gameplay you want. This may and may not relate to setting specific issues.
For instance if you want you sessions to touch upon specific morality issues you should create mechanics that encourage maybe even limit gameplay to deal with these issues. If the setting is also a part of this setting-mechanic-gameplay harmony that is just all the better.

BigElvis wrote:
If the setting is also a part of this setting-mechanic-gameplay harmony that is just all the better.

Insect wrote:
Hard System: your campaign world's mechanics needs must plug onto the pre-existing engine.

Soft System: each incarnation of the meta-system is moulded and tailored to the individual needs of the specific World.

TroyLovesRPG wrote:

Insect wrote:
My psychic abilites aren't working today. Could you tell us more about your settings?

The first, Inchaoticum, is a "brasspunk" fantasy setting with a technological level of the 1900s.

The second, 13, is a modern horror/urban fantasy game built on Jewish/Semitic myths and mysticism.

Cheers,

Chris.

Hello Chris,

Thanks for the reply. Those two settings could definitely benefit from very specific rules.

You have a technology/fantasy combination that could break many laws of physics and revert to an antiquated way of looking at mechanics, industry and society. The 1900's covers a complete century and your timeline may be one where the innovations and world events are consistent with our own. Or you can keep everything up until the year 1900 and completely rewrite history. That setting is broad and vague except for "brasspunk" which makes me think of steampunk with lots of gears, fire and water. Regardless, the inner-workings of the setting will probably force you to create rules that covers the way things behave in that world.

13 is actually more interesting to me as I like horror in a contemporary setting. The rules for this setting could be incredible if they operate from the standpoint that the myths are real and the "normal" view of the world is false. That could give you a very smooth, elegant rule set that eliminates all those exceptions that seem to pile up. This setting could be a great way to embrace all of the different religions in their original, ancient way. Its amazing what the underlying reasons are for most practices in orthodox Judaism. Sometimes, its scary.

With that, I can't imagine you using generic rules for those settings. I think they would take the fun away from actually playing the game. Also, generic doesn't necessarily mean simple and specific rules aren't always complex. Those settings could have a few simple rules that work perfectly for each because they accurately convey the dynamics of the critical relationships of the stories you want to tell. Focus on the parts of the settings that are major factors for the characters. As the players use those rules, they can get a feel of how the characters actually see the world. Believe me, it makes all the difference.

Good luck and keep us posted.

Troy

hmmm, it isn't incest from my point of view. the origanal D&D was created solely for the tolkien-type world that gary gygax and his partner created. its more judgement call than anything. the real question is, do you plan on useing the system again?

TroyLovesRPG wrote:
You have a technology/fantasy combination that could break many laws of physics and revert to an antiquated way of looking at mechanics, industry and society. The 1900's covers a complete century and your timeline may be one where the innovations and world events are consistent with our own. Or you can keep everything up until the year 1900 and completely rewrite history. That setting is broad and vague except for "brasspunk" which makes me think of steampunk with lots of gears, fire and water. Regardless, the inner-workings of the setting will probably force you to create rules that covers the way things behave in that world.

TroyLovesRPG wrote:
13 is actually more interesting to me as I like horror in a contemporary setting. The rules for this setting could be incredible if they operate from the standpoint that the myths are real and the "normal" view of the world is false. That could give you a very smooth, elegant rule set that eliminates all those exceptions that seem to pile up. This setting could be a great way to embrace all of the different religions in their original, ancient way. Its amazing what the underlying reasons are for most practices in orthodox Judaism. Sometimes, its scary.

TroyLovesRPG wrote:
With that, I can't imagine you using generic rules for those settings. I think they would take the fun away from actually playing the game. Also, generic doesn't necessarily mean simple and specific rules aren't always complex.