Now, like all of his articles, the Fantasy Heartbreaker articles do boil down to basically "what Ron thinks" although he has taken pains to make it something that most people can read and, hopefully agree with. Fantasy Heartbreakers have several features that he has outlined in the articles, many of which that can be debated, but that's a different topic.

The topic here is a very specical kind of heartbreaker that has really only one distinguishing feature because all the other features and highly variable. This, like Ron's articles, boils down to simply "what Jack thinks" but the feature of this variety of Heartbreaker is a simple sentence or phrase that reads in one way or another:

designed to be used with any genre

They have bought into the idea that a Generic/Universal myth. That for a game system to be usable for any "genre" is both doable and desirable.

I pose that System Matters, strongly. If you try to make a game system apply to any genre, you can end up with three results:
A game that applies to a subset of genres effectively, and others less so.
A game that applies poorly to all genres.
OR a meta-game; a universal system that creates game systems that can be applied specifically.

Thus, the myth is that you can create a game that is universal, while I believe it's possible to make a meta-system that is universal in that it becomes specific through play.

Marco wrote: Why's this a myth?

(who's all set to go set Mr. Jackson *straight* on this point)

I think Jack's statement would be more accurate if one replaces "useable" with "ideal".

Valamir wrote: I think Jack's statement would be more accurate if one replaces "useable" with "ideal".

the issue of "is a generic/universal game possible?" is really a very political topic; I doubt we can get everyone to agree that "designed to be used with any genre" automatically makes a game a heartbreaker of some sort, although it obviously breaks Jack's heart. adding the phrase "a universal game system" might be more of a heartbreaker, since calling a system "universal" means something completely different than "generic"; it implies there really is a one-best-system-for-all.

one reservation I have: does the designer seem to really mean it, or to have really thought about making a generic system? or did the designer just tack on that phrase in a moment of excitement, after thinking up a few tweaks that could modify a fantasy game into a space game? I think a lot of generic or genre-less games are really just games that move all genre elements out of the resolution system and into the realm of social contract/drama, or encourage house rules for playing a specific genre. if the designers have put a lot of effort into it, they may add a metasystem for adding genre rules, which is essentially what GURPS does.

another issue: I think some people confuse genre with style. or rather, the way "genre" has come to be used, a given genre may have a number of possible styles. generic rpgs, however, always convey a specific style: GURPS has its default deadly/detailed ("realistic") style, which can be used for a number of genres, but someone wanting to play highly evocative surreal-fantasy will find GURPS lacking. compare that to another SJG product: TOON. the genre is "cartoon", but the style is loose, fast-paced, zany. you wouldn't want to play Jonny Quest in TOON.

I think style is an important issue because even though you can strip genre elements out of the core mechanics, you can't remove the style. GURPS has a specific style to it, RISUS has another, different style. another example: I've mentioned that I'm abstracting a set of core mechanics from my last game; I plan on using those core mechanics in several different genres. am I making a generic game? well, no, because each unique game will have a couple genre-specific rules. will everyone enjoy playing my games? definitely not, because the core mechanic has a highly specific and unusual style. people who love realism in their games won't like my games at all.

I can see how the statement "designed to be used with any genre" would leave you unexited. I don't think the designer's failing is so much the actual statement as it is his choice of wording. It's the term genre than ruins the statement. Genre means different things to different people, much like the term balance.

I think Generic/Universal is a genre. No, I did not miss the point, genre could have been a different word - it is the concept that the word genre fills in for in the statement that is the problem.

A Generic/Universal system must still define the fundamental physics of the game universes/settings it is going to cover (a fireball does X damage, time works like blah). Atleast, those fundamental game physics needed to make the core system function. This defines a genre, to a certain degree. The setting is more malliable, but you still have to deal with the game's metaphysical and physical definitions of reality.

So, the error I see is that the designer failed to tell the reader his generic/universal system is just a setting-light system...not an any-setting system. This leaves the reading feeling like he's been tricked by the statement when such and such won't work with the generic/universal system.

Geez Jack,

I didn't know you felt that way.

I'm really sorry for breaking your heart.

Well, that's it for me then; I quit.

Fang Langford

p. s. Does this mean that Mike and Ralph ought to hang it up too?

Le Joueur wrote: Geez Jack,

I didn't know you felt that way.

I'm really sorry for breaking your heart.

Well, that's it for me then; I quit.

Fang Langford

p. s. Does this mean that Mike and Ralph ought to hang it up too?

Hello,

Fang, you're overreacting. Jack is talking about Heartbreakers, not specific design goals. A Heartbreaker, by definition, fails in crucial ways.

Also, this very old thread The "universal" issue carries some of my thoughts on the term "universal," and regardless of the terminology, I hope that we can agree on the basic idea that the "one game to rule them all" is not what we're talking about.

Best,
Ron

Le Joueur wrote:
p. s. Does this mean that Mike and Ralph ought to hang it up too?

Ron Edwards wrote:
Also, this very old thread The "universal" issue carries some of my thoughts on the term "universal," and regardless of the terminology, I hope that we can agree on the basic idea that the "one game to rule them all" is not what we're talking about.

Ron Edwards wrote: Fang, you're overreacting.

Ron Edwards wrote: Jack is talking about Heartbreakers, not specific design goals. A Heartbreaker, by definition, fails in crucial ways.

Ron Edwards wrote: Also, this very old thread The "universal" issue carries some of my thoughts on the term "universal," and regardless of the terminology, I hope that we can agree on the basic idea that the "one game to rule them all" is not what we're talking about.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: The topic here is a very special kind of heartbreaker that has really only one distinguishing feature because all the other features and highly variable...the feature of this variety of Heartbreaker is a simple sentence or phrase that reads in one way or another:

designed to be used with any genre

Or setting or style or whatever. You know what I'm talking about. It's in the subject heading. Generic/Universal Heartbreakers.

...This line is the most telling feature. What is a Generic/Universal Heartbreaker apart from this line?

...It is the line that states the author's intention, that their game can be used for any "genre"...as a central goal.... This is what breaks my heart. It when I read this line that I say, out loud, "Oh, man" with that crestfallen sound in my voice. It's because the author has bought a bottle of snake oil or swap land in Florida. They've been rooked, you see. Flim-flammed. Hoodwinked. They have bought into the idea that a Generic/Universal myth. That for a game system to be usable for any "genre" is both doable and desirable. Regardless of whether the game shows any effort to really do this....

But then, maybe the line is a Point of Heartbreak....

Jack Spencer Jr wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: Well, that's it for me then; I quit.

I'm speechless. Seriously. I'm not sure how to respond to this. Well, maybe I should recant a little. Maybe not recant so much as point to the phrase in quotes: "what Jack thinks." Don't let what I think discourage you.

In any case, feel free to disagree.

talysman wrote: I really haven't studied Scattershot much, but it appears to me to be a genre-less system with a meta-system for [using various predeveloped] genre-specific rules. This makes it unusual, because although the system is genre-less, Scattershot is intended to be modified for a specific genre [by the author].

Le Joueur wrote:

talysman wrote: I really haven't studied Scattershot much, but it appears to me to be a genre-less system with a meta-system for [using various predeveloped] genre-specific rules. This makes it unusual, because although the system is genre-less, Scattershot is intended to be modified for a specific genre [by the author].

That's great ad copy! Mind if I steal it (with the proposed changes, but still with your name attached)?

On closer inspection rather than a "myth" it looks like merely a (leigtimate) preference for systems where the mechanics are strongly tied to gener. I'll let Stevie go *this time.*

-Marco

Note: I prefer a stronger divorce for most of my games. I've posted three examples of play on The Forge--can one of the SDM crowd tell me which genre-specific system I *shoulda* been using?

Fang: Preach on, brother!

Fang seems to be taking it personally. I don't really blame him; in fact, I'm grateful, as seeing him rant reminds me that I shouldn't take Jack's comments personally. After all, just today I read a new thread on another forum saying that Multiverser didn't seem to have any limits on the kinds of worlds, genres, and games it could run, so at least some people think it's possible.

I think Fang is right. Jack has targeted the concept of univeral/generic (and I don't think those are the same thing, but I've said that elsewhere) as inherently flawed, in critical ways; that it is neither possible nor desirable. Yet there are several games represented by people on these forums and elsewhere that are to some degree universal or generic or both, with some degree of success.

Yet I do think that Jack has brought up a viable topic: that there are generic/universal heartbreakers. These are harder to recognize, perhaps, because they have less of a foundation--or perhaps more of a foundation to which each relates differently. Generic and universal games come from several starting points. One of them is certainly GURPS, the first successful effort to publish a generic system of which I'm aware, and certainly the most successful. However, another is D&D. A lot of generic games are efforts to extend D&D into other kinds of play. I note that even the OAD&D DMG attempted to do this, in two distinct ways: interfacing rules for Boot Hill and Gamma World, and magic/technology balancing rules for alternate prime material planes. It also seems to me that a lot of such games use a Rifts-like concept, in which all the genres blend together by being in connected realms such that sometimes residents wander from one to another, but I don't know whether this comes from the influence of Rifts or somewhere else.

I think that there probably are generic/universal heartbreakers; it's not because they are attempting to be generic or universal, but because they fail in some critical ways. Yet as I consider Ron's article (which, by the way, I did manage to read the other day, and think is an excellent piece), it strikes me that what makes fantasy heartbreakers what they are is that they fail to escape certain fundamental assumptions even as they make some wonderful leaps.

So if we are looking for some understanding of G/U heartbreakers, it would seem to me that we need to find what core assumptions from those foundational games (D&D, GURPS, Rifts, maybe Torg?, I'm not too familiar with Amazing Engine) are plaguing design in this area, along with what brilliant insights have emerged from games otherwise so plagued.

I know a guy who is rather involved in RPGs, maintains a site, writes for RPG sites, I think may have written some published modules and/or magazine articles, who commented in a public forum once that he didn't really pay much attention to the mechanics of a game system, because in play he wasn't going to use them anyway--he was going to use a light rules set he'd cobbled together over the years with which he could run any setting. People believe the Generic/Universal "myth". The problem is not there, but in the execution.

I certainly agree that game systems designed for a specific genre handle that genre better than generic systems, given the same quality of design. That was a major influence in Multiverser's use of interfacing rules: make it possible for the Multiverser campaign to immerse characters into the game system of a genre/setting/style specific game for a time, so that those specific advantages would apply there. Fang is attempting to achieve the same thing with Scattershot, through genre expectations and similar rules. GURPS attempted to do it with add-on rules for specific genres and settings (and people love those setting books who would never use the game). I probably wouldn't use a generic system for precisely that reason. The lure, to me, of a universal system is the ability to move from one sort of play to another as part of the ongoing game. That's me. Some people like the idea of a core rules system that's portable, so they don't have to learn a lot of other game systems. That reminds me that Fudge is this sort of game, and very popular, precisely because people learn the basics and then modify it slightly for particular applications. It's almost like a decision to get VHS instead of Beta, so you can see more movies on it (O.K., or those of you who are too young--never mind).

To try to focus this ramble, what are those core assumptions that generic/universal heartbreakers fail to escape?

--M. J. Young

M. J. Young wrote: ..., what are those core assumptions that generic/universal heartbreakers fail to escape?

Jack Spencer Jr wrote:

M. J. Young wrote: ..., what are those core assumptions that generic/universal heartbreakers fail to escape?

I believe that most G/U Heartbreakers are Simulationist focused on Exploration of System by nature.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: The focus on System is reasonable considering the idea, whether overtly stated or not, is to be the One True Game. System is one element that will not change when playing in differnt settings, situations, etc. Personally I would like to see a Narrativist generic game or a Gamist generic game or a Simulationist game focused a different element than System. That would be differnet, at least.

Le Joueur wrote: Or are you saying that an "any genre" game becomes a heartbreaker primarily because they wind up being about "System Exploration?"

I think the idea of the "universal system" IS a myth unless you start making some important distinctions.

There is an important difference between a system that can be applied to many different genres and settings and one that can handle "cross-genre" play.

I'm of the opinion that it's probably* not possible to write the latter type, the One System that can mechanically handle all power levels and genre tropes (super powers, high tech, psionics, magic) simultaneously, with equal levels of definition for all, without breaking down under the strain by being "patched" together by kludges or becoming unwieldy to the point of unplayablility.

I've always thought that there are really two distinct breeds of universal systems of this type: those that can handle low-power games well, and those that can handle high-power campaigns.

Some examples: GURPS handles normal and slightly enhanced humans very well, but begins to break down at truly superheroic power levels.
Conversely, Mayfair's old DC Heroes RPG (now published as The Blood of Heroes) admirably handled the cosmic-level likes of Superman and Darkseid, but normal folks like Jimmy Olsen or Ma Kent tended to look almost alike mechanically. There was no real definition at the lower levels of power.

So if you narrow your expectations, maybe it's possible for Two Systems to Rule Them All under this model.

But I think you can debunk the "myth" if you change your expectations for a universal system and focus on the first type that I mentioned above. If a system can be applied to many different genres and settings, but not necessarily drastically different ones at the same time, could it not also be considered a "universal" (and let's change that to "generic" for reasons that Ron has pointed out before) rules system?

Case in point: Hubris Games' Story Engine. Heck, it even says "Universal Rules" right on the cover (such... well, hubris). This game attacks the generic angle from a much more practical direction: relativity. In Story Engine, the "relative scale" of the current game is determined by the genre, so someone with a Matter (physical) pool of 2 (average) in a normal human-level horror camapign would be your average Joe, but a character who has a pool of 2 in a game where the average PCs are 70-foot tall inhabitants of Monster Island, then this score represents the physical ability of an "average" 70-foot tall monster.

I don't know if this idea is unique to Story Engine, but it's the first place I encountered it.

As you see, the characters from the two different campaigns couldn't interact directly without some conversion or kludge in place to re-define one or the other. But then, this pre-supposes that you're running some sort of genre-hopping game.

But if you're not (and really, how often are you doing that kind of genre-hopping regularly?), should this fact preclude Story Engine from being considered a functional generic system. I say definitely not.

excellent thread,
-Rod

* I'm not willing to say that this is written in stone. Hey, if someone can prove it wrong, by all means proceed!

Rod Phillips wrote: I've always thought that there are really two distinct breeds of universal systems of this type: those that can handle low-power games well, and those that can handle high-power campaigns.

Rod Phillips wrote: In Story Engine, the "relative scale" of the current game is determined by the genre, so someone with a Matter (physical) pool of 2 (average) in a normal human-level horror camapign would be your average Joe, but a character who has a pool of 2 in a game where the average PCs are 70-foot tall inhabitants of Monster Island, then this score represents the physical ability of an "average" 70-foot tall monster.

As you see, the characters from the two different campaigns couldn't interact directly without some conversion or kludge in place to re-define one or the other. But then, this pre-supposes that you're running some sort of genre-hopping game.

If you solve the problem of scaling, then there is no special gap between high-power and low-power.

Exponential scaling is a basic idea dating back to Champions in 1981. It is the clear way to deal with scale varying from small to large. The problem is that it is usually not implemented correctly.

Luckily, this problem [hit point systems scaled to size] was solved in 1987 with the wound track mechanic from Ars Magica.

I won't have the hubris to claim that Multiverser scales well on all ends of play. I have seen player characters move from ordinary human to superhero-comparable, and still been able to interact with characters who were ordinary humans in the same adventures, but I am certain that games designed specifically to handle superhero powers do so more effectively and efficiently.

However, I will comment on

what Jack Spencer Jr wrote: The focus on System is reasonable considering the idea, whether overtly stated or not, is to be the One True Game. System is one element that will not change when playing in differnt settings, situations, etc.

Rod Phillips wrote: But then, this pre-supposes that you're running some sort of genre-hopping game.

But if you're not (and really, how often are you doing that kind of genre-hopping regularly?), should this fact preclude Story Engine from being considered a functional generic system. I say definitely not.

Scaling is only one issue. Let's say you want to play in a game that's heavily about Sanity. Where are the specialized mechanics in Story Engine that promote and support that sort of play? There aren't any. The best most of these systems can do in such a case is to provide very generalized ways of dealing with the issues via using a standardized resolutions system. Which is to say that Story Engine's solution to every problem is to hit it with their large fluffy hammer.

To say that any one tool can handle all specific genres very well is certainly false.

But that said, it's often better to have a generic tool than none at all. I've said this a million times. Generic games are suitable for when no specific game makes itself readily available. The "readily" part as interpereted by the user. That is, while a "Universal" System might not be optimal for a given game, it might be usable on some level. And that might just be functional.

So I disagree with Jack's basic premise (which he's being forced to elucidate better and better). That is, there are some Generic Non-Heartbreakers. Not the perfect game for everything, but serviceable in a pinch. The point of Heartbreakers is, as MJ points out, not that they are poor. In fact, for them to he "heartbreaking" they must have some feature that makes them desirable, and therefore the dysfunction of the design so lamentable. No, what's also necessary is that the game could have been better had it taken acount of it's historical antecedents (as ROn tried to imply with his question above). That by ignoring the failures of past games, games often designed with the exact same design specs, that they make the same mistakes.

And what is the Hearbreaker design spec? To "fix" some other system, more or less. Basically, GURPS is the baseline "Universal/Generic" game from which all Generic Hearbreakers must derive, just as D&D is the baseline for the Fantasy Heartbreakers. Yes, there are Generic Heartbreakers, they just have little to do with Jack's definition. That is, almost all Generic Heartbreakers are attempts to fix GURPS without, for example, taking into account Champions 4th edition and other important Generic designs. Thus, obviously, RISUS, FUDGE, Scattershot, and Universalis, and many others are not Generic Heartbreakers.

Heartbreaker cannot be taken to mean "games we do not like" Jack. To do so would be to really obscure the meaning of the Fantasy Heartbreakers essay. I would posit that you definitely have a point (there are several previous threads that cover this ground in detail), and one would do well to discuss the applicability of "Generic" and "Universal" games as a whole. But the "Heartbreaker" issue is a separate one entirely.

I propose this definition of "Heartbreaker" in general (simply a brief and universal version of Ron's defiition, if I read it correctly):
1. The game must be an attempt to improve some archtypal design.
2. The game must be dysfunctional, and dysfunctional despite the fact that it could have been functional if the designers had paid attention to the faults and features of other games that also came after and attempted to fix the same archtypal design.
3. The game must have desirable features that make the fact of the dysfunction in #2 lamentable, hence "heartbreaker".

Does that ring true?

Mike

The best most of these systems can do in such a case is to provide very generalized ways of dealing with the issues via using a standardized resolutions system. Which is to say that Story Engine's solution to every problem is to hit it with their large fluffy hammer.

To say that any one tool can handle all specific genres very well is certainly false.

I propose this definition of "Heartbreaker" in general (simply a brief and universal version of Ron's defiition, if I read it correctly):
1. The game must be an attempt to improve some archtypal design.
2. The game must be dysfunctional, and dysfunctional despite the fact that it could have been functional if the designers had paid attention to the faults and features of other games that also came after and attempted to fix the same archtypal design.
3. The game must have desirable features that make the fact of the dysfunction in #2 lamentable, hence "heartbreaker".

Rod Phillips wrote: That's a great point, Mike!

One other point that makes them "heartbreakers" (IIRC from the first essay): that they are independently-produced labors of love by their creators.

Yeah, I would say its one of the red flags, or tell tales of a heart breaker rather than being part of the definition. For instance it seems to be almost universally true that all of the heartbreakers (that Ron's identified anyway) have some nugget of true brilliance within them (like the childhood skill mentioned above). While this certainly isn't definitive I think it is indicative.

Especially when one considers that a heartbreaker generally starts as an improvement on a benchmark game, the nuggets of brilliance often serve as signposts to what areas of the benchmark game the designer really wanted to improve.

A small company could break our hearts just as easily as an independent designer.

Mike Holmes wrote: Scaling is only one issue. Let's say you want to play in a game that's heavily about Sanity. Where are the specialized mechanics in Story Engine that promote and support that sort of play? There aren't any. The best most of these systems can do in such a case is to provide very generalized ways of dealing with the issues via using a standardized resolutions system.
...
Generic games are suitable for when no specific game makes itself readily available. The "readily" part as interpereted by the user. That is, while a "Universal" System might not be optimal for a given game, it might be usable on some level. And that might just be functional.

Mike Holmes wrote: Heartbreaker cannot be taken to mean "games we do not like" Jack. To do so would be to really obscure the meaning of the Fantasy Heartbreakers essay.
...
I propose this definition of "Heartbreaker" in general (simply a brief and universal version of Ron's defiition, if I read it correctly):
1. The game must be an attempt to improve some archtypal design.
2. The game must be dysfunctional, and dysfunctional despite the fact that it could have been functional if the designers had paid attention to the faults and features of other games that also came after and attempted to fix the same archtypal design.
3. The game must have desirable features that make the fact of the dysfunction in #2 lamentable, hence "heartbreaker".

Mike Holmes wrote: I propose this definition of "Heartbreaker" in general (simply a brief and universal version of Ron's defiition, if I read it correctly):
1. The game must be an attempt to improve some archtypal design.
2. The game must be dysfunctional, and dysfunctional despite the fact that it could have been functional if the designers had paid attention to the faults and features of other games that also came after and attempted to fix the same archtypal design.
3. The game must have desirable features that make the fact of the dysfunction in #2 lamentable, hence "heartbreaker".

I felt much -- very much -- of John's quote bore repeating here.

John Kim wrote:
The difference between a "house system" like BRP or Storyteller and a "universal system" like GURPS or Hero is mostly in marketing. Both reuse the same core mechanics. However, a house system is reprinted with each basic book with only the options desired, while a universal system has the core rules in one book, and specific books which present optional rules for that setting/genre.

Overall, there are a lot of times when I think that a universal game does a better job than a game specifically designed for the genre. This is simply because a universal system will have more and broader testing of the system. Moreover, there is a lot of overlap between the genres. A subsystem developed for the espionage genre might work great for the martial arts genre as well, for example.

Designing a game from the ground up for a particular genre might appeal in theory. However, there are also pitfalls. [snip]

Are heartbreakers really dysfunctional? Frankly, I don't know most of the games that Ron is describes in his article. However, I have heard good things from other sources about Darkurthe: Legends, for example. I am perfectly willing to believe that there are people who have a lot of fun playing that game. If so, what about it is dysfunctional??

I think Ron's essays do point out that there is a category of independent fantasy RPGs which all have a fair number of similarities with each other and with D&D. Because of his opinions, Ron considers them "heartbreakers". This is because he wants to encourage independent publishing and innovations -- but he also wants to encourage questioning of basic role-playing concepts from D&D. However, I don't think there is anything objectively bad about these "heartbreakers" or the D&D style of play in general.

I think there is an elitist overtone that the more Narrative games typical of The Forge are somehow objectively better than Darkurthe: Legends. However, this simply isn't true. These aren't rockets which can be objectively measured in how far they shoot -- they are games, and the purpose of them (usually) is to have fun.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote:
2) Publishing context which Ron says is twofold. First is " few guys, a good idea, a labor of love, and book on the shelves, with the hope that gamers will like it." The heartbreak is saying to the indie game publisher of saying "Go, go. Follow your dream" and then looking and thinking "That's your dream???"

John Kim wrote: The difference between a "house system" like BRP or Storyteller and a "universal system" like GURPS or Hero is mostly in marketing. Both reuse the same core mechanics. However, a house system is reprinted with each basic book with only the options desired, while a universal system has the core rules in one book, and specific books which present optional rules for that setting/genre.

Overall, there are a lot of times when I think that a universal game does a better job than a game specifically designed for the genre. This is simply because a universal system will have more and broader testing of the system. Moreover, there is a lot of overlap between the genres. A subsystem developed for the espionage genre might work great for the martial arts genre as well, for example.

I can't strongly *enough* agree with this. Far from being merely "acceptable," it's my opinion that broader systems are often *far superior* and more accomodating than narrower ones. The freedom and breadth that generic systems have (IME) almost always results in superior play experiences compared to narrower systems.

Marco wrote: I think this is probably the reaction most gamers have to indie/alternative rpg's in general.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote:
The operative words here, for both Marco and John is "in my experience" and/or "in my opinion" and/or "for my play preferences."
Others desire a more focused play experience and as such require a more focused game system. And that's it.

Hi Marco and everyone,

You know, Jack has acknowledged that his initial extreme position is not tenable. I also think that the authors of general/universal games should recognize that they have significant conflict of interest in "leaping to the defense" against that position. I strongly urge all such authors to be done with that - Jack has agreed with you. No need to keep nest-guarding.

Know when you've won, people. Only a bully keeps shoving when the debate is done.

Best,
Ron

I strongly DISagree with Marcos claim that general (and thats being kind) systems are likely to produce a better play experience. At the very best this can only be a claim to preference.

I don't deny that people can be totally satisfied with systems aimed at broad usage like GURPS, and for good reason, but I don't find them very satisfying myself. I can accept that for a given group it might be a better idea to use a general system, but I don't think this should be taken to the point of advocacy. I think that the use of a single system consistently will produce consistent play for a group, and that may well be an important goal if there is a history of stylistic clash or other difficulties; but I think that as far as a given game is concerned, a given authorial vision, it is better to produce particular mechanics that reflect the central idea of that game.

I think the mechanics, by the use of reward systems and institutionalised goals, frame the type of play that will actually be had at the table. It locates the breakpoints and point origins in the game space such that players have their attention pointed to particular things. IMO it is far better to design from scratch and with deliberate intent than to try to patch and modify an existing system which already has established value "judgements" systematically expressed. I think every game should be its own thing in itself, and that games designed to general or house systems are not really games in their own right, but versions of the core game which mechanics they are using. Its more like the multiple flashy colour schemes and designs of pinball machines.

So I'm a strong proponent of the idea that games should have their own rules. Cricket and baseball would not be better games if you could bring your own bat and nobody cared what it looked like. This has everything to do with games needing predetermined variables and little to do with the utility of the object.

Funny, when I'm with Liberals, they peg me as Conservative. When I'm with Conservatives they peg me as a Liberal.

Same with this issue. I am not on the side that says that there is no value to Universal/Generic games. Hell, the only published game with my name on it falls under this category. I posted to say that I disagreed with the point of the post which stated, essentially that generic games have no place. OTOH, I am also of the belief that focusing on specific things is a powerful way to enhance a game as well. (I get hit with this attempt to put me on one side of the issue by the Simmies and Narries as well who seem all to believe that I'm a rabid member of the other species, when, in fact, I'm the biggest proponent of mixed play).

It's circular and simply flawed logic to say that "If you make a focused game that's not as good as some generic game, then generic games are better than focused games."

If, OTOH, you were to simply say that this was your opinion, I'd have to accept that, as the statement I made originally is little more than my opinion, essentially. Yes, what makes a "good" game, in the end, is highly subjective, and collecting data on the subject would be difficult to impossible. Sure, if you could garuntee me that every generic game would handle every specific situation as well as any specific game, then the broadness of the gneric system would automatically sway me. But I don't think that's a reasonable claim. I'm not saying that there aren't bad specific games out there; hardly.

But given similar effort and quality, the question is where the effort goes. My point is that, if one puts one's efforts into a smaller area then that area is more likely to be well treated everything else being the same. So, in the most general of terms, specific games seem to me likely to beat generic games on a small playing field of thier own choosing. Thus I'd rather play Pendragon for Arthurian legend than try to make GURPS work for it. And before you point out that Pendragon is a modification of a Generic system (BRP) let me point out that if that's true, then D20 is generic, and so is just about every other system out there. By Generic we mean presented without additional rules specific to the genre; with rules that intend to be applicable to all situations by extension. Thus only GURPS core rules is generic (and barely at that). As soon as you tack on some of the supplements you are playing a different game (Certainly Supers makes that point).

Now, that all said, perhaps you find that a particular specific game's focus that would otherwise cover the genre that you are interested in playing is just too small. Perhaps there are none that suit your style of play in that they do not cover as much ground as you will potentially need. This is why I stated above that:

Generic games are suitable for when no specific game makes itself readily available. The "readily" part as interpereted by the user.

contracycle wrote: I strongly DISagree with Marcos claim that general (and thats being kind) systems are likely to produce a better play experience. At the very best this can only be a claim to preference.

I don't think this should be taken to the point of advocacy.

I think to a great extent, the strength of generic game systems is being overlooked. I would 100% agree with Gareths assertion (and indeed have made the same many times) that a game is best served by mechanics that most closely match the needs of the game.

But lets actually examine that for a minute. If the needs of a game are to focus on a certain genre and the color, trappings and conventions there of then the game mechanics used to play such a game should be mechanics that focus on that genre and its color, trappings, and conventions. A functional second place would be games that simply get out of the way and don't interfer with the same.

But what if the genre is not a narrow one. How would one play multiverser with a narrow set of genre specific rules. Not really possible. So one could argue (successfully I believe) that Multiverser, far from being "generic" is actually highly specialized at dealing with a very specific genre. In this case however, one that involves flipping between several genres in rapid succession.

Similarly GURPs could be said to not really be generic at all. It is actually quite specialized. It just doesn't happen to be SETTING and COLOR specialized. GURPS works best when playing in games where reliance on realistic physics is typically a given, when characters are best described by as comprehensive a set of parameters as possible, and where mechanics are primarily designed to be driven by causal in game events. Once one recognizes this than ANY set of genre, color, and setting can be plugged in as long as the above three items are true within that setting.

So GURPS is in reality, far from being Generic or Universal. There are probably as many "worlds" that it doesn't handle well as there are "worlds" that it does. There are certainly among the horde of source books "worlds" that it handles better than others, and this is almost entirely driven by how well a given world can adapt to the above 3 core GURPS specialties.

I'm somewhat ashamed to say I haven't had the chance to go over JAGS but I suspect that one can find its own subset of specialites (that may overlap or be quite different from) the specialities of GURPs which similiarly defines why JAGS isn't really universal either.

Similiarly Universalis (despite the name which is really meant to be a play on Universe rather than Universal) isn't really generic. It has a core set of specializations that are as important as GURPS' (although diametrically different).

Scattershot is perhaps the only system I've heard of that may be able to legitimately stake a claim as universal because the design specifically attempts to allow those core set of specializations to be customizable prior to play. However, until the game is in a complete and self contained state where anyone off the street could accomplish this without assistance, its success in that endeaver is more eagerly anticipated than proven.

So I do not see a rift between "focused games" and "not focused games". What I do see is a wide range of things that a game can be "focused on" and occassionally people who don't realized that even so called "generic" games are actually quite focused themselves in a different arena.

As for which is "superior", as with all things that's largely motivated by preference; but I think there is a certainly a degree of right tool for the job also.

Valamir wrote:
But what if the genre is not a narrow one. How would one play multiverser with a narrow set of genre specific rules. Not really possible. So one could argue (successfully I believe) that Multiverser, far from being "generic" is actually highly specialized at dealing with a very specific genre. In this case however, one that involves flipping between several genres in rapid succession.

Just to mention that I only used the term general, not the term universal. I feel there is a big distinctions between games that are merely applied differently in different settings, and games which from the outset are designed to be configurable for play in different forms. Both are distinct from games that do one thing.

Agree with Valamirs outline of GURPS and it accords with what I mean about he game being the same, but merely the colour changing. I think GURPS games feel like GURPS games, and that analytical objective approach is suitable for groups. I think a game intended to switch in or out real components of the system, or which are designed to frame the building of a game for your group, which I think could properly be referred to as universal systems, are rather different beasts.

And I'll also put up my hand to being rather extreme on the issue, given that in another thread I'm proposing that mechanics should not be decided upon until character design. However, let me go back to John Kim's point:

Overall, there are a lot of times when I think that a universal game does a better job than a game specifically designed for the genre. This is simply because a universal system will have more and broader testing of the system. Moreover, there is a lot of overlap between the genres. A subsystem developed for the espionage genre might work great for the martial arts genre as well, for example.

contracycle wrote:

My problem with this, testing for what?

Mike Holmes wrote: So, in the most general of terms, specific games seem to me likely to beat generic games on a small playing field of thier own choosing. Thus I'd rather play Pendragon for Arthurian legend than try to make GURPS work for it. And before you point out that Pendragon is a modification of a Generic system (BRP) let me point out that if that's true, then D20 is generic, and so is just about every other system out there. By Generic we mean presented without additional rules specific to the genre; with rules that intend to be applicable to all situations by extension. Thus only GURPS core rules is generic (and barely at that). As soon as you tack on some of the supplements you are playing a different game (Certainly Supers makes that point).

So can it be fair to say that there is a difference between universal/generic and a multiverse system?

Sylus

Sylus Thane wrote: So can it be fair to say that there is a difference between universal/generic and a multiverse system?

Marco wrote:
I suspect he meant testing for "broken rules."

Time for daughter threads, folks, I think. One's already started about the basic terminology.

This is your moderator speaking ... find a nifty thing that remains unresolved in this thread, isolate it, and start a new one that links back this one in its first post. I think it's time to let the mom-thread retire.

Thanks,
Ron