Topic: "Universal group" systems
Started by: Matt Snyder
Started on: 11/12/2001
Board: RPG Theory
On 11/12/2001 at 10:12pm, Matt Snyder wrote:
"Universal group" systems
I have long loathed systems billed as "universal." There are a number of reasons, not the least of which I admit is ignorance about their actual usefulness in play. By universal I mean those systems like GURPS or even Storyteller, to some degree, that purport to facilitate any and all genres, settings, etc.
But I was just wondering whether there are another kind of "universal" systems -- i.e. universal for a group of players. On the one hand, this is pretty obvious. I've read posts from folks who use, say, BRP for all kinds of play. Others might cling to Hero, as it suits them.
But on the other hand, I haven't identified a "universal system" for my groups, beyond the obvious D&D (because that's mostly what we play). However, on the rare occasion we might consider something else, system has been a stumbling block. Whenever I consider some new premise/setting/campaign idea, I wonder which rules system to use, or even whether I should create something new.
Often, my answer is reverting back to some rules set that satisfies my group -- D&D -- or, worse, scrapping the idea altogether.
I'm curious to hear what others think about this. Do you often use a "group universal" system, or would you rather try out a new game engine to see how it suits your group?
-- Matt (who always crosses his fingers hoping his queries haven't been discussed ad nauseam previously)
On 11/12/2001 at 10:46pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: "Universal group" systems
Well, I tend to use Hero...
But I think what you're experiencing is a common problem. Groups often feel that learning a new system is a chore, and not to be undertaken lightly. This bugs me, personally, as I switch systems more often than Madonna switches partners. Being a system junkie I can't see why people have this problem with learning new systems. But they do.
I especially can't get over how people refuse to pick up lite systems. I can kinda understand not wanting to learn how to play a game as thick as Aria every couple of weeks, but FUDGE takes about ten minutes to learn. How much effort is that?
I am forced to conclude that, in fact, what occurs is people struggling to hold on to the familiar. If a system was fun for this it should be good for that, right? Unfortunately, people who are like this are stubborn by definition, and getting them to see the light is difficult.
Trying new systems is good for a group. Do not fall into the Universal mentality (what am I saying, buy Universalis when it comes out!) and keep playing the same systems for everything. If your players want to see the effectiveness of systems specifically tailored to settings, try some of Sorensen's games. Those'll show 'em how a setting specific system can really enhance a game.
Mike
On 11/12/2001 at 10:56pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: "Universal group" systems
Hi Matt,
Couple of things ...
ONE
Check out my comments about "general" and "universal" in the GNS essay to see where I'm coming from regarding the term.
TWO
The "group loyalty" thing is a real phenomenon. Ultimately, it's no big deal. If a group wants to use, say, RoleMaster for anything they want to play in the future, why not?
The question I have for them is WHY they want to switch to new settings and so on. Is it really just for variety? Or does the moral/thematic element of "westerns," for instance, figure into wanting to play in that setting? If something like that is involved, that's when we start to see rumblings of discontent appear about using the old system.
Best,
Ron
On 11/12/2001 at 11:01pm, Matt Snyder wrote:
RE: "Universal group" systems
Here's another take on the same musings I posted above.
As a game designer, how often do you find yourself returning to basic concepts -- whether it be dice mechanic, skill or ability sets, or reward systems, etc. -- because they fit you or your groups needs?
I ask because as I'm writing up the rules for my game (dark fantasy game called Dreamspire), I realize how other setting ideas I have could use the same core rules ideas. That's satisfying because I think the Dreamspire rules address my groups needs as role-players (or at least my needs!).
On 11/12/2001 at 11:12pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: "Universal group" systems
I, personally, only return these days to considerations of my groups GNS leanings. Outside of that, I try to make the system the best it can be for supporting the setting in particular. That having been said, I believe that more generic systems do a better job for my players for certain settings.
Many would say that less generic is always better, but I challenge that notion. A certain amount of "Genericness" can be good for allowing a broad range of characters to encounter the setting in question. Since I trust my players character making skills (and communicate closely with them during the process) I don't worry too much about characters created outside the bounds of what will work for the premise in question. Also, I find that Generic systems allow for ease in creation of oddities that the GM may still wish to include in the system mechanics.
OTOH, absolutely setting specific mechanics can be very cool too. Whatever makes it all work. I also trust my ability to sell the new system to my players, so I don't worry about making it familiar to them at all.
Mike
On 11/12/2001 at 11:13pm, Matt Snyder wrote:
RE: "Universal group" systems
On 2001-11-12 17:56, Ron Edwards wrote:
Hi Matt,
ONE
Check out my comments about "general" and "universal" in the GNS essay to see where I'm coming from regarding the term.
Aha! That's where it was. I kept trying to find this in the "System Does Matter" essay. Thanks. I need to re-read the section.
TWO
The "group loyalty" thing is a real phenomenon. Ultimately, it's no big deal. If a group wants to use, say, RoleMaster for anything they want to play in the future, why not?
Agreed, Ron, that it's no big deal if a group uses the same "engine" with a different "chasis." I meant no negative criticism of that practice. If it's fun, go for it, I say! See my reply above for a more game-design oriented query that's more of what I was trying to say.
The question I have for them is WHY they want to switch to new settings and so on. Is it really just for variety? Or does the moral/thematic element of "westerns," for instance, figure into wanting to play in that setting? If something like that is involved, that's when we start to see rumblings of discontent appear about using the old system.
You raise a valid point, Ron. I think for many, variety is the answer. Yet it's more interesting, and perhaps more important, to ponder groups' tendencies to change settings for thematic reasons. To use your suggestion, if a group wants to explore the theme of, say, humanity, lawlessness and vigilantism on the frontier of a new world, a generally heroic system like D20 that incentifies violence without consequence might be ill-suited.
I'm not sure what facilitates that setting & theme. Hey, maybe it's Sorceror & Sixguns, new from Adept Press ... heh heh. Aw, hell, that might actually be damned cool. I rather like the idea of a sheriff with an object demon badge, perhaps.
(Sorry if I'm way off base, there, Ron. I blame my relative ignorance of Sorceror yet again. Still, for a guy w/o the book, I'm learning! Now I just gotta get that book ... )
On 11/12/2001 at 11:28pm, Ben Morgan wrote:
RE: "Universal group" systems
But I think what you're experiencing is a common problem. Groups often feel that learning a new system is a chore, and not to be undertaken lightly. This bugs me, personally, as I switch systems more often than Madonna switches partners. Being a system junkie I can't see why people have this problem with learning new systems. But they do.
I knew I wasn't the only one out there. New game systems are like crack for me. The sad fact is that I've bought far more rulebooks for games than I will ever, ever play (My list of games that I'd like to play on the Profiling thread is just the tip of the iceberg).
Our current group was brought up on a steady diet of Cyberpunk, and we all love the system. So much so that when I got the idea to write my own fantasy game (an idea which originally started as an attempt to make Palladium Fantasy actually playable), the decision to use the basic Interlock mechanic was a no-brainer.
I devoted a lot of time adapting the basics of the Cyberpunk system for use in a multi-species, magic-influenced, semi-pseudo-medieval environment (at the same time as coming up with an interesting world history, making sure that each race would be whiz-bang enough to actually play, rather than relgating them to "part of the crowd" status, and creating a magic system that gave people a totally new perspective on the nature of magic).
Stuff happened, and I put it aside, vowing to come back and finish it at some point. Since then, I've read some very interesting things on the subject of game design (quite a few of them right here), and I've gone back to it and looked it over, and asked myself "Why was I trying to do it this way?" The result of those long hours of work was in fact a rather incomprehenible mass of rules and tables that actually far more closely resembled the monstrosity of a game that I was originally trying to get away from than anything that could conceivably be called "streamlined". In the end, I decided that when I want to run a fantasy game, I'll probably just use Sorcerer (or if Jared has his pulp fantasy game finished by then, I'll give that a whirl).
As far as the other thing, people for the most part just don't like to try anything new, if for no other reason than "because it's new". There have been times when we've introduced rules changes to our beloved Cyberpunk, and the cry of protest that went up from the peanut gallery could be heard across town. Once they'd *tried* it, however, they loved it, and couldn't imagine not doing it that way all along. So sometimes, you just have to tell people to quit whining and try it, and they just might like it. In the end, they'll thank you for it.
On 11/13/2001 at 1:26am, Marco wrote:
RE: "Universal group" systems
As the maker of a multi-genre system, I say to heck with Mike--go with the "universal mentality!" Seriously (Universalis sounds like a blast!), what was it you loathed about GURPS? I didn't get it--it sounds like you don't mind using a single resolution mechanic across numerous games (including yours) but don't like GURPS.
I just brought Little Fears and I like it a lot (haven't finished it yet). It does a great job of setting the atmosphere and the innocence mechanics are (IMHO) spot-on-target. But if you *ever* decided to do the Delta Green version of LF, you'd really, really want a source book like GURPS High Tech. Note: Delta Green changes CoC's premise so the rules change--but sometimes even within a single campaign the Premise can change (at least from adventure to adventure) so a system too-heavily tied to one premise might not suit you for the lifetime of a given game.
I'm working on source books for our universal system right now. Both of them include entirely new rules constructs to handle the premises of the books. The stuff that hasn't changed doesn't have to be redone.
-Marco
[ This Message was edited by: Marco on 2001-11-12 20:40 ]
On 11/14/2001 at 2:54am, Laurel wrote:
RE: "Universal group" systems
I'm not big on change. I tend to eat the same kinds of food, shop in the same stores and aha! I play the same game systems over and over again. I'm trying hard to expand my horizons at least as RPGs are concerned, but I thought it was worth commenting that sometimes, a player or play-group's "brand fixation" is just part of a larger pattern. Its a good idea to take that into consideration. If you have a player who's resisting a new game or clings to one system for all games, look to see what other kind of change they're resisting.
On 11/14/2001 at 4:04pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: "Universal group" systems
Laurel,
What are you suggesting? I'm not getting you. Are you saying that system fixation is an indicator of other RL problems? Or that it might indicate a fear of change? Could you elaborate?
Mike
On 11/14/2001 at 9:36pm, Laurel wrote:
RE: "Universal group" systems
Sure thing, Mike. Yep, that's exactly what I'm suggesting. That system-fixation ~might~ be part of a player/GM's overall "fixation" personality, meaning that convincing them to expand their horizons isn't going to be as easy as putting a new book in their lap. The issue ~might~ not be diversifying their RP; it ~might~ be diversifying anything in their life. Sometimes, just pointing out to a player that they resist change on any level is enough to get them to be receptive to trying something new. They could be unaware that they are stuck in a rut. On the other hand, they might like their rut, in which case, getting them to enjoy a new system is an experiment in futility and you might need to accept them the way they are or else find someone else to play with.