Hello fellows, this is my first post here and I am looking for some wisdom.

I am on the last development stages of a new game system. I will not cover here the details on how we got the point of starting a new system (or why we will the world need it :) )

There two main goals this system want to accomplish, that we feel are important because this opens the market for this kind of games and because it puts the fun in the actual play rather in learning rules; from there we also have a great flexibility to use the system in different game styles/settings:

1. The system should be generic. Meaning, not tied to a setting. We know there are some systems out there with the same feature, but this one should be crystal clear when moving a character from one setting to another, no stats modification no feat modification, just start playing.

2. The game mechanics should be the easiest possible. This can be split in two small goals. This is especially important to gather occasional players; people that will play one time in their lifetime maybe but still will be consumers and may gather more people to play.

2.a. Simplicity, no need to read a hundredth books with rules. Just get a few guidelines and start playing.
2.b. Logical, the rules in the system should be easily compared with real life and easily derived from another rules. This will cut the learning curve. I.e. the skills have descriptive names on what the skill does, not "flavor names" that sounds pretty but tells nothing. Skills, spells, check, use the same basic values, like +1 has the same cost, difficulty associated

Now what I will like to hear is your thoughts on this matter, the main question here is:

what will make a system be generic/universal/simple but still be fun and good?

what good things can be learned from current universal systems and what others can be improved?

are the above goals enough or should we focus on another stuff?

Hi N,

Comparing what works and doesn't work in other games is a great way to help you figure out how you want to design a game.  In fact, it's probably the -only- way (we all based on some game, whether another roleplaying game or chess or whatever). 

The problem is, a lot of folks here can probably tell you about experiences they've had in other games and things they thought were fun, but:

1) It may not coincide with what you think would be fun
2) It might be something completely foreign to your gaming experiences, and trying to describe it won't be as useful as experiencing it through play.

My recommendation would be to try out some games and answer those questions for yourself.

The first game that came to my mind when you're describing your goals is "The Pool", which is a free game online (there should be a link somewhere on this site or you can google it).  It is genreless, super easy to learn, but also does two things I think you'll find interesting for your own design.

First, the rules have nothing to do with real life, and it actually makes it easier to understand and easier to play because of it.  You may find that to be a worthwhile thing to pull from for your game or at least an interesting angle to look at.

Second, when we talk about easy to learn genreless roleplaying, you have to ask yourself what your game does that isn't covered either by The Window or freeform roleplaying.  The Pool has some neat stuff that deals with pacing adversity through dice and trading narration to play with who gets what input.

As far as your game, it may or may not be things you use, but it gives an interesting bit of design ideas you might find useful.

You may also want to check out Universalis, which is a crunchier, but also worthwhile entry in the genreless category of games.

Chris

I could start writing an essay, but the distillation of my opinions can be found in my sig (GLASS). It's generic ("genreless" doesn't pass my spelling checker) but it's meant for action LARP (boffer, Airsoft, paintball) not tabletop. I think it could help you, however, because LARPs face problems which are resolved with techniques that conform to some of your goals: simple rules, no ambiguity in effects, balanced costs, consistent system application regardless of "flavor" or "special effect" (e.g. magic is no different from technology, in the system itself).

Of course, there's Hero System, which does what you want completely and thorough... except for the "simple" part. Hero System is a BIT of a big step, to learn, but it's a toolkit to which I've returned for over two decades (including when writing GLASS: it could be called "Hero Lite LARP" if Steve Long wouldn't sue me for it!).

HTH;
David

Hey there,

Personally, I don't believe in "generic" systems.  I believe that the system must be integrated every step of the way with the game's setting, character, color, and situation components, with all of them tuned toward creating a certain kind of play experience. 

I only mention this so that you can know that there are people like me out there (I highly doubt I'm the only one) -- a fact which suggests that "generic" systems are not the be-all, end-all of design.  Which isn't to say they're bad or evil, just that they won't do it for everyone.  Just food for thought.

-Marshall

hey guys,

Thanks for your replies, there are couple of more things i forgot the first time.

One, another goal of the project is to reach people that normally will not play the game, which is the major reason to make it simple (no simplistic)

Second, part of the generic approach (flexible may be a better word) is that the game rules allow a simple game but also a very complex game, in other words it could be appealing to hardcore RPG gamers

Third, the realistic approach has to do with the setting, and a logical (kind of) approach to non realistic situations

Finally, the "fun" part is very subjective as you mention, as I said before the goal is to reach as much as possible people , then providing "different kinds of fun"...(thinking in hackn slash, storytelling,,etc..)

hello fellows,

I`d been reading about Universalis, and The Pool, I learned a couple of things. let`s see:

1. These systems are really good and they are more "loose" in their approach. Mine is more

"lawful", flexible but still can be improved. Leason learned, work on a bit more flexibility.

2. My simple rules are not that simple, but still simple. Let me explain, these two systems

have a very simple rules. However, my rules are more extended, since they cover a lot of

situations, mostly they are the kind of "what will happen if a do this", the rules will help

you find an outcome. They are still simple, is my belief, because you don`t have to remember

the whole book to figure out one roll. Leason learned here, clarify better what are basic

rules, and which ones are "extended" for very hardcore gamers.

3. Both systems are very good on storytelling part. One feature I like the most is the weight

the players decisions have on the story and how they can change it. I saw another game post

here (LINK) that I really like. Then I found my design still relies too mucho on a "gamemaster"

and I want to balance that part. So I am now developing this rule:

Any player may call a "plot twist" roll at least once in a session. This player may declare

that the action x occurs. This player will roll a "luck/destiny roll" if the roll is succesful

the action occurs as he explained. If the player wins, he will have another "plot twist" roll

during that game session, if the player lose he/she can`t call another plot-twist roll. Players can`t call a plot-twist to change another Actor decisions or actions. If a new NPC enters the story due to a plot-twist, the player that called the plot-twist will "control" the NPC from this point on.

I think the rule needs to be refined, I am adding some restrictions to cut clean the space for powergamers, but not too much as to be completely restrictive.

The rule makes sense within the mechanics context since there is already a "luck" abilitiy and a "luck" roll, so this will follow along. Please let me know what you think. I think this one will cover the last spot to have the system ready to playtesting.