RPGs require a certain number/character of rules to define it and the various types of things common to the game such as task resolution, perhaps combat, etc.  But many RPGs also include some, shall we say, "dustier" corners where you might find things like rules for drowning, or poison for instance.

Given I'm in the process of working on a universal system based around the idea of having a relatively small core rule set against which "plug-ins" can be built, it occurs to me that including these kinds of rules in the main document  might not be appropriate.  I'm considering stripping these rules out of my core rules document and putting them into another file that a GM can pick through if they need/desire to.  So, I come to you!

In the games you play, do you prefer to have "all" the rules in one book or file, even if this means you could have twenty pages of rules for special circumstances, or do you want these somewhere else?  Some other option?

In the games you write, what do you do?

But they're not rules for special circumstances, are they? They're optional rules for special circumstances?

I don't see a problem with a text that has the core rules on the first five pages or whatever, then has twenty, sixty or two hundred pages of optional material after that?

I agree that optional rules can be quite a good idea, but there is the question of who chooses them. You have suggested the GM should do it, and I think that's probably best, if you have a situation where the GM goes "this is my game, who wants to play in it". In situations that are more collaborative, such as where one player suggests it and encourages another player to run it, it might be good to create larger structures that keep track of the options, such as a general marker of "hardcore-ness" for various levels of survival realism. Also there is the issue of systems overlapping, which is something the main rules will have to keep an eye on, such as if one system messes with another when they operate at the same time, like zero gravity swamps when you're in love!

Also make it rummage friendly, nicely categorised, as people will be flicking through those pretty frequently for different things.

As far as the plugins go, my very under-developed system is designed to allow for people to create (for example) their own D&D style feats on the fly, based on a costing system that is universal, and so in it's own weird way balanced. In a similar way I want to make sure that the "conditions" part of the system is also ready for various adjustments, and can cope with me adding things at a later date. Basically, if I want pluggins, I try to insure that the main system has components ready to receive them.

A game must contain clear instructions on how to play it. Instructions must contain processes in the game and how to use those processes to address the premise of the game. The game must not include instructions for processes that do not address the premise of the game.

Luke wrote:
The game must not include instructions for processes that do not address the premise of the game.

Vulpinoid wrote:

Luke wrote:
The game must not include instructions for processes that do not address the premise of the game.

That rather final and demanding.
V

I like solid guidelines to handle these things myself. The more centralized the mechanic or guideline is, the better in my opinion. I did notice you mentioned poison. My guess is, in a Universal System, you should probably cover poison.

Vordark wrote:
RPGs require a certain number/character of rules to define it and the various types of things common to the game such as task resolution, perhaps combat, etc.  But many RPGs also include some, shall we say, "dustier" corners where you might find things like rules for drowning, or poison for instance.

A fair amount of replies to my question seem to suggest that having a section near the end for these various rules might not be as much of an issue as I thought.  Although, since I plan to hold to electronic publishing only that might complicate matters.

As to the questions or philosophical points concerning what rules "are" or how Genesys differentiates itself from other systems, I can't really say much on that front.  Ultimately a game is an amusement, and the question of whether or not it's good or necessary comes down to the question "Is it fun?"  And I think the fun factor of an RPG boils down to whether or not you can use it to tell the stories you want to tell, either as a player or GM.

After playing various RPGs for years, and not a few "universal" systems, I realized that each system I used had its good points and bad points.  Genesys was born out of a desire to create a universal system that, from my perspective had nothing but good points.  I think even given the incredibly narrow target audience of "me, myself and I" this goal is like unattainable, but still...the idea was to take what I know about RPGs and come up with a universal system that was better than the ones I've already played.  I've highlighted elsewhere those aspects that I think set Genesys apart from other systems (not necessarily making it better, but different) and I think about all I can hope for is that a handful of other people will see these ideas, and their implementation, compelling enough to use the system.

I'm not a marketing person, due in large part to an opinion I have that if you have to actively promote something and persuade people to use it, it's probably not as good as you want people to believe.  I figure letting people know something is out there, eagerly seeking input from others (as well as showing people that their input matters) and allowing people to use it or not should be enough.

I also think that trying to present the game as anything other than "Yet Another Universal System(tm)" would be silly, because when you get right down to it, that's all it actually is.

Vordark wrote:
I'm not a marketing person

Vordark wrote: I figure letting people know something is out there, eagerly seeking input from others (as well as showing people that their input matters) and allowing people to use it or not should be enough.

Vordark wrote:
I also think that trying to present the game as anything other than "Yet Another Universal System(tm)" would be silly, because when you get right down to it, that's all it actually is.

Vordark wrote:
Genesys was born out of a desire to create a universal system that, from my perspective had nothing but good points.

Vordark wrote:
...all I can hope for is that a handful of other people will see these ideas, and their implementation, compelling enough to use the system.

Vordark, if poison is important to your game why not make it a central rule? There are few systems out there with good rules for poison.

My points are not "philosophical."

Saying that "games are for fun (and therefore I don't have to think about anything and I can just poop out game design)" is not a very reasonable approach. It does a disservice to your game. Game play may be for "fun," but game design isn't. The purpose of game design is to produce a functional, engaging game. No fun for you, fun for the players.

MJ has already taken you task about your "not being a marketing person."

But even your "universal" system cannot cover all possibilities. Can. Not. The broader the scope, either the game become less detailed so that each instance of play feels the same as any other or it becomes so detailed as to be a burden to parse.

Much better to focus your design on precisely what kind of play interests you and damn the rest.

You may want to include a switch or dial about how "realistic" poisons are. Or anything covered. EG many games have poisons take effect in a scale of combat time, meaning seconds. Most don't, but it is more a question of what sort of events you want to see happen. if you want thing sto happen in seconds or minutes, great. If you want strict reality, then look the stuff up. Or you can just differentiate between quick poisons and slow ones.

Um.  Wow.  While the original point of this thread was to ask others (implicitly those "others" that care about such things) their ideas regarding how many, and the presentation of, optional rules or rules for special situations in a universal role playing game (which I thought, by definition, are meant to cover as wide a collection of needs as is practical) they feel would be "acceptable", I figured I'd take the time to answer the off-topic questions and respond to the more general statements.  I can only assume that what I wrote bears absolutely no relationship to what is in my head since I can't imagine my thoughts are worth the level of hostility I seem to be picking up.  So, let me try a different way.

mjbauer:  Of course I would like Genesys to be useful to other people.  You are right, if this was not a goal I wouldn't have bothered to solicit, respond to and incorporate all of the feedback I've received, nor would I be seeking more.  But hoping other people will like or use the system is, to me, a different thing from trying to convince people to use it.  And you are right, that is how I interpret the word "marketing".  All I was trying to convey in my message is why I think Genesys is good, or at least has the potential to be.  If in your estimation this is actually a marketing plan (and, as you say, a good one) then cool.

Luke:  Well, that's certainly an...interesting post.  I'd say you've gone rather far to misrepresent what I actually wrote, but something tells me that was probably the point.  Reading around the hostility, it looks to me like you aren't a fan of universal systems.  If that's the case, I really don't think Genesys is going to sell you on the concept.  I don't want to put words in your mouth, but that's how I interpreted your post.

It's not my intention, in any way, to cover every single possibility that might occur across all genres and settings that Genesys might be applied to.  It's only a goal to provide enough of the system to get most GMs and players, say, 85% of the way there for what they need as a core engine for things like task resolution and combat.  As part of acknowledging this I've tried to develop Genesys in such a way that it easily accommodates "plug-ins" that will hopefully get the players and GMs the rest of the way there.  So the kinds of questions I'm asking aren't so much "Is poison important to my game?" but rather "Is poison important to enough players and GMs to provide some measure of guidance or a mechanic for in the core rules document?"

Vordark, don't mistake criticism for hostility.

This is the First Thoughts forum. This forum is for big ideas and concepts. "Do I include rules for poison in my universal system" isn't exactly a first thought.
Being honest about the limitations of your game design is.

If your system is far enough along that you're asking about appendices, then you don't need to be posting here. That's a question for playtesting. You've been playing your system, are your playtesters asking you for poison rules? And you do NOT need to have rules for poison in a universal system before you can start playtesting.

Phoo, well I tried to stay out of this specific point as I knew people would jump on it. First of all Luke is being a little uncompromising on what is a common preconception here, that for some reason does not have it's own thread/article, unlike many other fundamentals here:

I can't yet phrase this in pithy form but it is sort of like this:
Rules systems have a personality, and this should be recognised. Your universal game will not do everything, and I think you do not expect it to. But there are games designers who think that they should have one rule, any rule for each situation, just to "cover" it and avoid arguments, regardless of if it doesn't fit with anything else their rules system is doing.

Now there is a place for rules to stop arguments, but if that's all they do they can be a bit boring. They can lack the next level up, which is where not only do the rules stop fights they also say something, ask questions of the players, challenge them etc. There is a trap complex rules systems can do, where they restrict a group of players ability to decide things in a way they all like because the rules say something different, where the dice roll and everyone looks disappointed, because a picture they were all building in their head got trashed by The Rules.

Now this is not what your rule system does thank God, because the systems are optional, so they only come in if people like them. But still there is an extra layer that rules can have if they mesh into a greater whole.

I have felt that rather than hammering this idea we could just look at how your rules develop, and if you say "I've been noticing that this rule and that rule interact in a really interesting way" then I could pull out the idea that the rules can be built into a bigger picture, an expression of a view on a world etc etc.

So the reason you're getting this heat off people is because they are thinking "If you don't really care about this part of the game, why are you adjudicating it?" It would be like a referee adjudicating the legality of goal celebration or something, or bureaucratic pointlessness. Now I say again, you have not shown this tendency, but many people seeking universal systems do, and many people here watch out for that before it wastes everyone's time.

As a total contrast with this, there is Reign by Greg Stolze. It's not a universal system, but those rules it does have are explained and alternatives presented; every inch of the game (just about) is thought through and optional so you can play it with confidence that every mechanic you stick by has been considered and constructed to do something. It's a really great way to write a system, very different to a bucket of rules.

Now maybe you can't write a speech on how you built your magic system, but you can do people the credit of building each subsystem as if it is the core of the game, and does something satisfying. And even, as Luke said, tying it all into a single premise, maybe not articulate, but a core feel of what you love about rpgs or what you hope to see in them expressed in the various interactions of the game.

Vordark, I don't think they're being hostile so much as direct.  In my short time on this forum I've been at the receiving end of Luke's criticisms a number of times.  He doesn't beat around the bush, he cuts straight to the point, and it can sound like he's just telling you off for having a dumb idea, but I think his intention is for you to think about what you're doing and challenge assumptions that you've made.  Does an RPG need character advancement?  Does an RPG need combat?  Many of the things we take for granted in RPGs are actually optional, so he asks these penetrating questions in order to get us to see this ourselves, rather than just telling us.  Also, when I read MJ's post it didn't seem hostile to me.  He was merely clearing up your preconception of what marketing is (which, as he said, happens to be his job) and even said that your strategy was a good one.  Think of your own statements as akin to saying that RPG gamers are devil worshipers practicing occult magic (Spell: Feed Body; Components: slice of bread x2, smear of peanut butter, smear of jam; Ritual: use the sacred knife to apply peanut butter and jam to bread, then consume the ingredients; Cast Time: ~2 minutes; Effect: drives away hunger and invigorates the body); you can see how a purely negative view of something can rile up a person involved that thing.  MJ also made clear that he agrees with your opinion of "bad" marketing, which I think is something we can all agree on, unless you're actually in the business of selling... cars... or something (I hate those car salesmen commercials, you'd think by now they'd have improved them, even slightly).

I've noticed on the internet that words can be misinterpreted fairly easily, leading people to feel insulted or attacked when they actually aren't.  On another forum I've been involved in a thread about Science vs. Religion.  It's gotten heated at times, but for the most part it's been surprisingly civil, but there were a few times when I or another of the posters would apologize and clarify something we had said because someone misinterpreted it and took offense (it is an admittedly touchy subject).  This might be part of the reason I constantly inject humor into my posts, in the hopes that people will assume I'm joking rather than attacking them.  But then maybe it's just because I'm weird.  And funny.

Now, back to the point...
It would make perfect sense to include, say, a combat system in your system because many games do have combat in them, and for the most part combat is non-setting/genre specific.  Something like a magic system, however, would vary wildly across different genres and even specific settings within the same genre.  A magic system would then be inappropriate to include, or at the very most give a few different examples of optional magic rules that can be dropped in favor of a plug-in with it's own magic system.

Poison and disease seems like it would be fairly similar across genres and settings, but many games either don't have poison at all or only have a simplified system for it.  You could drop it and if someone wanted a poison system then they could write a plug-in whose sole purpose was to add poison and disease mechanics.  You could instead include poison and if someone didn't want to use poison rules they could just ignore it.  It seems like you could go either way, the question is which way do you WANT to go?  Do you want to include poison to make your system more complete?  Or do you want to leave it out to make your system more flexible?  The happy medium might be to leave poison out of the core rules but write a plug-in for poison.  The major problem with this sort of thing is getting plug-ins to integrate well into the rules, rather than having seemingly disjointed sets of rules that are used simultaneously (like a magic system that is completely separate from the combat system, something I understand is far too common in fantasy RPGs).  I'm confident that you can work around this problem and that thinking about this will help you to write your rules so that they are more capable of integrating plug-ins, and also to write plug-ins that integrate themselves into your system.  Just think about, "If I didn't include poison rules, how would I write a plug-in for poison that would integrate seamlessly into my rules?"  This is one of the major design goals, is it not?  To allow your system to accept plug-ins to alter the rules for specific genres, settings, and play styles?  Regardless of what you decide in the end, I think thinking about both sides of the problem will help you refine your game.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go cast Do Homework a couple times, followed by Feed Body, and then more Do Homework.
Spell: Do Homework
Components: paper x20, pencil
Ritual: bang head against wall, scribble illegibly on paper until pencil breaks
Casting Time: 6 hours
Effect: there is a chance to get a passing grade on the homework, improving your likelihood of graduating from college, this chance depends on your Intelligence
What, you didn't think it summoned a demon to do your homework for you, did you?  That's, like, cheating!  That's how people graduate from fighter school without knowing which end of the sword goes in the monster.

I think the approach that would be best for the system is to provide a section for these optional rules and special circumstances and make it a sort of "grab bag".  Then I simply need to dump a few example systems, so to speak, in there and add to it as play-testers report omissions.  As long as each rule is kept relatively straight-forward and the entire section starts with a disclaimer along the lines of "These rules can help you get by, but if you think something is vital to your game you should use or design a more detailed plug-in."

In the games you play, do you prefer to have "all" the rules in one book or file, even if this means you could have twenty pages of rules for special circumstances, or do you want these somewhere else?  Some other option?

In the games you write, what do you do?

Egonblaidd wrote:
...when I read MJ's post it didn't seem hostile to me.

mjbauer:  No, I found your post to be well-reasoned and informative.  Not hostile at all.