Alright, I've been to a couple of forums, I've answered other peoples posts, I've helped, explained, I've started threads, asked questions and questioned answers.......
Yet I get a very strong impreession that a large percentage of gamers, or atleast those that use forums and design there own games, have a strog dislike for universal systems, mechanics that are seperate to settings, and the ability to alter the mechancis and rules for their own ends.

So, the question I would like answered is.....

What are peoples views on Universal systems, General mechanics and alterable rules?????????????????????????????????

If anyone does respond, I have no problem with heated or heartfelt responses, so long as you explain it to me! As yet, I get a lot of buzz and no substance as to the faults, so if there is a big problem with it, I'd like to know!

Hello, Autocrat!

Your strong impression is essentially correct. However, it's not the sort of thing that can be answered trivially; for a complete answer, start at the beginning of the articles (perhaps 'System Does Matter') and read forward, paying particular attention to the concept of 'incoherence'.

The short answer, though is: different goals in game play are facilitated by different rules. No set of rules can be functional for all goals, and thus an attempt at 'universal' rules is doomed to failure.

If what you mean by universal is that you are going to have the same goals, types of premise, and color, you're just going to put it in different settings, then - sure, that's probably possible. Not all that universal, though.

- James

Ok, here's mine.

A game should be about something. It should have a purpose. The designer should have a clear idea of what it is the characters are supposed to be doing. Before you object, let me note for the record that this does not mean the game must be narrowly focused. It may be narrowly focused but it doesn't have to be.

There are many ways to slice the pie, it is my firm belief that the designers job is to slice it. It may be a big slice, it may be a sliver, but it should be sliced. Failure to do this, IMO is a huge cop out on the part of the designer.

Here are some examples of the wide range of pie slices you can have.
Sorcerer: limits play to just being about sorcerers and their relationship to their demons. But setting, time period, types of stats, types of demons, themes...pretty much anything and everything else is in play.

Violence Future: much more narrowly defined. The setting is fixed to Nippon-techno future with characters coming from a very narrow range of society. It then goes a step further and starts game play at the END of those characters lives.

Universalis: slicese a square piece of the pie if you'll allow the analogy. It is universal in the sense that a game can be about anything, anyone, anywere. But it is very specific about the method of how to get there.

Riddle of Steel: Easily applied to anything that could be considered gritty low fantasy, and relatively easy to modify so that its been and being used for a variety of other settings, includeing sci fi oriented ones. Character selection is quite broad but the where this game cuts its slice is with a specific type of scenario. One that focuses in like a laser beam on the drives and passions of those characters and ties them emotionally into the conflict right from the beginning.

Each of these games are dramatically different, each of them slice the pie in a different way. But each of them make a statement by how they slice it.

Multiverser: In some ways follows the reasoning of the universal do anything go anywhere game mechanic. In a sense its slice of the pie is almost the whole pie. But yet its not the whole pie. Multiverser is a universal system because the focus of the game is on traveling between worlds. There for the game is focused on making sure every single possible world in the multiverse is accessible. Even so, I think the game would benefit tremendously from a good couple prunings with a heavy duty hedge trimmer, but now where getting more down to the level of personal preference than conceptual lines in the sand.


And that to me IS a line in the sand. If the game doesn't slice the pie somewhere, somehow. Then the game is pointless. There is no reason for its existance, no reason for me to bother to look at it, and no reason for me to play it or help with its design. Take a stand, draw a line.

Suck it up and announce to the world "this is what my game is about"
Have the courage to say "if you don't like what this game is about, go play something else, I won't mind"

To me (with the exception of games like Multiverser and some uses that Marco and others give to GURPs) building a game that attempts to be all things to all people is...well, I'll take you at your word on heated and heartfelt responses and just come right out and say it...the cowards way out.

By that I mean, being so fearful of some gamer rejecting the game that the designer tries to please everyone and give a little something to everyone. So that even if its not the players favorite design they at least find something they can say "I like this part" about.

To me, the success of a game is not in the number of people who like it kinda sorta. But the number of people who are absolutely passionate about it...passionate about liking it, or passionate about hating it.

So, take a stand. Make a statement about what the game is to be about. And then focus all of the mechanics, not just the attribute choice, on exploring that better than its ever been done before. That's how you make a game people will be interested in. Generic has been done a million times already.

Now you see, the things that confuse me are like the following.....


... james_west ...The short answer, though is: different goals in game play are facilitated by different rules. No set of rules can be functional for all goals, and thus an attempt at 'universal' rules is doomed to failure.


... Valamir ...
"... To me (with the exception of games like Multiverser and some uses that Marco and others give to GURPs) building a game that attempts to be all things to all people is...well, I'll take you at your word on heated and heartfelt responses and just come right out and say it...the cowards way out. ..."

emphasis on the latter part..... " the cowards way out "



I thought that in most areas of design and creation, the ideal was to get as close to perfection as possible. Of course, that is taking the techological design view, not the creative arts dewsign view!
Now that I've said that, could this be the potential blind spot I'm having with grasping certain failing concepts... the fact that I look at it as a mechanic, as a machine, where as others view it as expression and creation?

I simply fail to see why its the Cowards way out, why it is exceedingly likely to fail etc. When I first started using forums, seveeral people told me it would be hard, if not impossible, to make multiple levels of skills available without altering the rules. The same people said that you can't have Stats/Abilities that can be varied, again, it was impossible.
Yet on these accounts, and others, I have found it simply logical to make things contractable/expandable.... so why do people say these things don't work?


Still, any others with their views, and if James_West and Valimir could respond to my posting, I'd appreciate it!

Autocrat wrote: I thought that in most areas of design and creation, the ideal was to get as close to perfection as possible. Of course, that is taking the techological design view, not the creative arts design view!

Autocrat wrote: I thought that in most areas of design and creation, the ideal was to get as close to perfection as possible. Of course, that is taking the techological design view, not the creative arts dewsign view!

Valamir wrote: A game should be about something. It should have a purpose. The designer should have a clear idea of what it is the characters are supposed to be doing. Before you object, let me note for the record that this does not mean the game must be narrowly focused. It may be narrowly focused but it doesn't have to be.
...
Universalis: slicese a square piece of the pie if you'll allow the analogy. It is universal in the sense that a game can be about anything, anyone, anywere. But it is very specific about the method of how to get there.

Valamir wrote: To me (with the exception of games like Multiverser and some uses that Marco and others give to GURPs) building a game that attempts to be all things to all people is...well, I'll take you at your word on heated and heartfelt responses and just come right out and say it...the cowards way out.

This topic come up not that long ago (sorry I don't remember which thread it was), and something you need to define is what is meant by "universal."

If I remember, there were 3 definitions:

1. The "One-True-System." A perfect system that works for all 3 GNS modes.
2. A system that can be used for any setting or genre, like GURPS or FUDGE.
3. A system like Multiverser, which allows you to play in different settings. (I know that sounds alot like #2, but I don't remember exactly what was said in the topic, I just remember that there was a third category which involved Multiverser.)

People here definitely don't believe in the One-True-System, but some people are more into the GURPS or FUDGE idea, if those systems match your style of play.

There are many different ways that games try to be specific. Some games are specific to a setting, but try to broadly cover different types of campaigns in that setting -- like maybe "Blue Planet" or "HarnMaster". Some games have a particular genre feature which they are specific to, like "All Flesh Must Be Eaten" (which is about zombie film plots which can take place in very different settings). Some games are universal, but try for a specific style of play (i.e. compare GURPS and "Savage Worlds" and "The Pool").

Autocrat wrote: Now that I've said that, could this be the potential blind spot I'm having with grasping certain failing concepts... the fact that I look at it as a mechanic, as a machine, where as others view it as expression and creation?

OK

Well, I'll start by thanking everyone so far... believe it or not, virtually all of that makde sense!
Most of all, I'll clearly thank Timfire, clehrich and John Kim, not for being more poignant per se, but managing to use certain words that struck a cord within me......

so saying...

When I state "universal" & "general", i mean that the game system I am working on is meant to be able to possess or perform the following;

* Not the be all and end all, nor the perfect Universal system. Really must find the correct term... how about versatile or flexibly generic?
Its just meant to allow peple the choices they normally lack, permit them to adapt as they play, and adapt the rules as they play also!

* Variable Resolution methods. - Different people like different things, yet to be honest, the differences are often not known. For the majority, it's the packaging and experience, not the system that made the difference. Even so, I think I have it so that the game will perform using D100 Roll under, Multiple Die or No Die, with the obvious Crit's, DoS stuff as well.

* Levels of Detail. - Again, due to different people wanting different things, you can opt to have very general, loose or specific skill types, item types, vehicles etc.

* Variable Stats. - Not everyone likes tri-stat, 6 Abilities, 12 Attributes etc. So the Stats are also alterable, you should be able to use the set you like.

* Be variable. - Not every game using these rules/mechanics will be broad scoped... some will be combat orientated, other towards adventure, some towards stealth etc. So saying, if the game is leaning in certain directions, why not make the related Stats, Skills and Items more important, and just generalise the rest. Thus a game involving Psionics and stealth would require details about those two groups, yet things like combat, firearms, vehicles, survival skills, cybertechnology, mecha and whatever can all be reduced to general terms instead, highlighting the level of importance, or lack of!



The reason I have doe this, and am doing it still, is quite simple, yet largely profound...... how many times have you progressed to a point where the rules aren't enough, the players/gm's etc. want to do something else, go a different way, try something unusual, and found that the rules are either missing, or seem hashed out!
How often have you played several different games, and realised theres little difference between them?
Have you ever broken several different RPG's, by different houses, and looked at the component parts, and then replaced them, swapping bits between, to see the result?

To be honest, I found the real difference between the games, the key driving force of setting, genre and flavor, isn't specialised mechanics, its called text!
The word things emotively, they pay particular detail to the important things and leave the rest as shadows etc.
Thats the major difference, (of course, IMO! LOL).


Now, I can understand someone wanting a particular style of play, thinking of how the game would look, the characters, the things they will do etc..... then create rules around the concept. I believe this is what most people do. This explains why most universal systems are bland or generic. Instead, why not generate key concepts for mechanics, then offer varying levels of detail, options, skills, items, traits etc. for each type of general group. Then, as and when settings come along, you have a key area to build from. you know the stats available will work, the math of the mechanics is there, the skeletal frame work of skill types and equipment lists are laid out, all you have to do is sculpt it to your taste!
Things like, hey, I want a heroic epic of combat and warfare, then increase the detail on combat, weapons, highlight the importancce of physical attributes, give all characters a moderate bonus to the Vitality pool or what ever!
things like, hey, deep, dark, shadowy and dangerous, a little mystery, a bit of lurk etc..... great, lower the vitality levels, highlight on senses, observation, mental alertness, amke characters roll for sanity checks agaisnt the correct stat or resistance score.
Hmmm, you have a super street tough who travels the world throwing fireballs around, no problem... pay attention to the combat chapter, and where it says Manouvres, Advanced, pick your moves buddy. what, the fireball as well, look there, it says you can spend XXX and use either the Psionic powers or the Arcance spells for those affects, and the stats are the same as the skill level says!

i8t's not difficult, so long as you have done it without getting distracted, without bias , and without falling into the trap of personal prefence. (done that repeatedly, luckily I have "FRIENDS" that don't exactly like the same sort of thing, and point out any mistakes! Wonderful!).


So does that view make any sense?

Oh, I did engineering, and after several years study and then experience, I've learned to do most things with a hammer, screwdriver, adjustable spanner and butane lighter!!!
:)
No, not perfect, yet it does the job more than well enough in most cases.

Valamir wrote: Harn I think suffers from this same thing and is why I never found the game at all appealing despite my appreciation for the effort that's gone into creating the world. What are the issues, the concepts, the elements that make Harn unique? Why Harn and not real historical Europe? Why Harn and not Glorantha? Why Harn and not Mythic Europe from Ars Magica? Why Harn?

And then part two of the question. What in Columbia's game mechanics are specifically targeted at the answers to the first question? Where's the statement?

Instead, what I've seen of Harn is that the system is entirely secondary. Columbia didn't so much write a game as they wrote a travelogue to an imaginary realm and pretty much punted when it came to makeing the game. They gave you a bit of everything, made a nod to gritty realism, but never really took a stand to say what the game is about. What is playing in Harn all about? And how do the mechanics promote that?

Riddle of Steel is a similiar low fantasy world. Given 20+ years of dedicated writing by people desireing to do so there's no reason why Wyerth couldn't be just as developed a setting as Harn. But yet there's no doubt what TRoS is about. In fact, you could take TRoS and play in the world of Harn with it, and suddenly there is a statement being made.

Valamir wrote: But from my perspective there is a difference between commercial art and personal art. Art that is created because its ones job to create it (at which point it becomes more of a technical issue like that above) and art that is created because there is some piece of the artist's soul that demands to come out.

From my perspective art of the latter type, must be making a statement of some kind. Must have some meaning of its own. Commercial art you do for a paycheck. RPGs will never really grant you a paycheck worth much, so designing RPGs from a commercial standpoint seems pretty pointless. There are far better ways to put talent to work commercially. RPGs should have soul to them.

Autocrat,

You've essentially written the outline of an essay called, "System Doesn't Matter," which I think substantially contradicts the beliefs and experience of a great many folks here.

Autocrat wrote: To be honest, I found the real difference between the games, the key driving force of setting, genre and flavor, isn't specialised mechanics, its called text!

Hello,

I recommend that people take some time to browse through previous discussions of the term "universal" here. Running a search on the term came up with these, among others (from most recent to oldest):

Universal and established systems
Universal vs. specific systems, for challenge in many arenas
Best/most popular universal systems?
Universal RPG
Universal in search of distinctions
D20 as a universal system
Generic RPGs: one system to rule them all ...
The "universal" issue

One of the shared goals at the Forge is to try to move forward with discussions and treat older discussions as an archive, in order to avoid running over and over the same ground. So even if you don't want to read every damn post in all of the above, I do think it serves everyone's benefit at least to do some browsing. Also, if anyone else can remember any important threads about this that I happened to miss, please post links.

Best,
Ron

I'm just going to poke my head in and toss out a small argument against modularity, which seems to be a holy grail of generic game designers. Because it is dumb.

Modular game systems, by definition, are incapable of capturing certain complex interactions that may be essential to particular settings; this makes them fail the universality test.

For instance, I might be playing a game where the characters are faeries whose health is dependent on the intensity of their magic. The intensity of their magic is directly related to their emotional states; a faerie is most powerful mystically and (resultantly) resilient physically when he is experiencing a particular mood.

Now suppose that I have "plugged in" a module for emotional states and a module for magic. By the definition of modularity, they cannot interact; how do I accomplish the interaction that I desired?

John Kim wrote:
This seems contradictory to me. First you suggest that HarnMaster fails because it should be specific to Harn. However, then you say that TRoS can be successfully used to play in Harn instead of Weyrth. Surely the same criticism applies to TRoS, then. What are the issues, the concepts, the elements that make Weyrth unique? Why Weyrth and not Harn? Why Weyrth and not Mythic Europe from Ars Magica? Why Weyrth?

Riddle of Steel: Easily applied to anything that could be considered gritty low fantasy, and relatively easy to modify so that its been and being used for a variety of other settings, includeing sci fi oriented ones. Character selection is quite broad but the where this game cuts its slice is with a specific type of scenario. One that focuses in like a laser beam on the drives and passions of those characters and ties them emotionally into the conflict right from the beginning.

HarnMaster is more down-to-earth, as reflected in the campaign I played in. It is more about fitting into society rather than finding a spiritual destiny.

for many years Harn existed only as a campaign setting, with no specific game system devoted to it.

However, my impression is that they were dissatisfied with how other game systems handled role-playing in Harn. So HarnMaster was developed specifically to address what different was desired for adventures in Harn.

Alright.... I'll face the fact that out of the forums I've been to, and out of all the individuals, less than 10% seem to have any interest in Generic or universal rules. Thats fine.

The bit that really does worry me is that people seem to read things that I haven't said...... i.e. modular. When did I say modular?
For that matter, when did I say the be all and end all, or the ultimate?

Also, the rules aren't complex, they are the exact opposite. You choose the resolution you want, and you use that through out, no matter what you do, be it skills, talents, powers, mutations, spells, special combat techniques, what ever, the method is the same:

Base Stat + Skill/Talent/Spell + Difficulty + Opt. Modifiers = TN

Doesn't matter whether you use D100, Multiple Die or No die, the method is still the same!
How can that be complicated?
If it is a positive, you add it, a negative, you subtract it. High numbers mean more, low numbers mean less. No strange multiples, abstractions, reversals or what have you in certain other RPG's. Simple.

And before any one mentions the idea of l;evels of detail, these are replacements, not additions, to the process.... so the Skill would be Swords, or Big Swords, or Long Sword, not all of the above!

So, lets look at a standard RPG that everyone knows, and make the obvious comparisions, so that its clear.

AD&D

Herioc, slightly epic, adventure and action, Fantasy, Historical (in some cases)

D20, = or over system
Higher the stat, the better (apart from Armour Class & Thac0)
Skills can have modifiers.
Rules for most common situations
Rules for period armour & Weapons (roughly stoneage to renaissance)
Rules for Magic (similar variations, yet offers slight differences)
Rules for hit locations and critical hits.


Now imagine having that, yet having skills that tie in with a different setting, say 1920 america. Same goes for the equipment available. Lets update the vehicles as well.
Now, the harder part is altering the classes, yet it's still do-able, just lower the Hit Die they get, remember that the Stats will be altered as well, hmmm... not to shabby, not to much hard work.

Shame you had to do it all!
Strange thing is, you can do that with most systems!
All it takes is application and effort, thats it. A simplistic view, yet considering I've had to convert AD&D, Shadowrun, Cuperpunk, WOD and Cthulu, I'd say that it's fairly easy with that type of game.
I'll admit it may get difficult with some systems, but those are specifically designed as one offs, only to deal with certain things.... and to be honest, often require more learning than anything I'd put in print!



So, maybe I'm not asking the right questions.... may be I should be asking.... Why don't you like it.... rather than asking for factual ideas, I should refer to preference, because thats all I get, and more importantly, thats what matters the most!

Still, I'm going to bow my head and accept that I'm in a minority, that no matter what I say or do, people will automatically negate what is said or presented, and put their own statements in my place. It's happened so far, and it will keep happening.

So saying, I'll try hard not to mention generic, universal or flexible again.

So thank you all for the posts, yet I doubt if it's worth continueing, as some ne said, the sacks already been beaten empty, so why do it all again without progressing any further?

Valamir wrote:

John Kim wrote: HarnMaster is more down-to-earth, as reflected in the campaign I played in. It is more about fitting into society rather than finding a spiritual destiny.

Ok. So what part of the game mechanics are about fitting into society? I haven't looked through Harn recently enough to have the answer at my fingertips so I'm unsure whether there is or there isn't.

If I looked at a character sheet from your recent campaign, what would I see that indicates "aha...this campaign was about fitting into society"? Anything?

Valamir wrote:

John Kim wrote: However, my impression is that they were dissatisfied with how other game systems handled role-playing in Harn. So HarnMaster was developed specifically to address what different was desired for adventures in Harn.

Excellent. As it should be. So what specifically was developed that demonstrates what's different about adventures in Harn. My perception is the whole thing is nothing more than a different perspective of "modeling reality" as a dozen dozen other games have done.

Autocrat wrote: I thought that in most areas of design and creation, the ideal was to get as close to perfection as possible. Of course, that is taking the techological design view, not the creative arts dewsign view!

* Variable Resolution methods. - Different people like different things, yet to be honest, the differences are often not known. For the majority, it's the packaging and experience, not the system that made the difference. Even so, I think I have it so that the game will perform using D100 Roll under, Multiple Die or No Die, with the obvious Crit's, DoS stuff as well.

Timfire wrote: 1. The "One-True-System." A perfect system that works for all 3 GNS modes.
2. A system that can be used for any setting or genre, like GURPS or FUDGE.
3. A system like Multiverser, which allows you to play in different settings. (I know that sounds alot like #2, but I don't remember exactly what was said in the topic, I just remember that there was a third category which involved Multiverser.)

OK, Autocrat, unfortunately you pushed the "Universal" hotbutton, when you've now stated that you want something more limited. What might better be called "generic" in that I think that you mean to say that the system can be applied to any element of any genre equally. I think people should note that this is what he's talking about now.

So, the question then it what about generic games? Do people have problems with them? Well, it all depends on just how generic. That is, genre is composed of all sorts of things. And the question is does the system in question reall intend to address all of them, or some subset?

For example, does GURPS cover Shreyas' Fairies? Why not? If it were truely generic, wouldn't in be able to deal with that? As MJ puts it, it's like Values. Each generic game assumes that certain things are consistent across the genres being played. For instance, ever note how all of them assume humans as the "base" creature? What if there are no humans in the setting? The argument is that we then have a comparison to something familiar, but what if the game is about being in unfamiliar territory? There are genre's like that. So these "generic" games aren't addressing these particular variables.

What variables do they maintain as important? Well, first they tend to have combat systems, and be focused on them. Indicating that in whatever genre you play in, combat will be important.

Mike's Standard Rant #3: Combat Systems

But they don't give as much detail to, say, international diplomacy. So if the game is really about international diplomacy, will the game be generic to it?

OK, so you admit that no game is going to cover everything. But the problem becomes that in trying to cover as much as possible, which they do attempt, they don't specifically cover any particular genre well. Give me any generic game, and any genre that it's theoretically useful for, and I'll give you a game that does that genre better, or a rule that could be added that would make the generic game better for it. Proving it's not the best game right there.

Actually, I agree with you that one can successfully play a generic game, just like you can use your four tools to accomplish anything. But tell me this, if you have just your four tools, and there's a plasma torch right there next to you waiting to be used, the perfect tool for the job, are you still going to use the butane lighter? If you do, are you sure it's not an act of bravado (who are you anyhow, McGuyver)? Are you sure that it's producing the best product in the end? Why use the harder to employ tool when the other is on hand.

Now, I'm of the belief that there are times where the generic tool is probably as good as anything available for the task ahead of you. So, given that case, when nothing better is available, I think that generic games are fine for forging ahead. But I think that these moments are actually pretty rare.

Because there are some generic games out there that do better because they don't try to cover all the presumed axes. Take Sorcerer for instance. Not often thought of as generic, play is all about summoning and binding demons and such. But it has no set setting. So in many ways it's generic. When do you use Sorcerer? When you want to play in some particularly neat setting of your own design, and you want to ask the question "How far would the characters go to get what they want?"

Basically, if you look around, you'll find that games that are just as talorable have been created that more closely fit your needs. So the traditional Combat System generic model is pretty much obsolete at this point, except perhaps as a tool kit from which to actually design other games (see FUDGE, and less, HERO System).

Now, it's absolutely inarguable that there's some slight benefit from not having to learn a new system from game to game. But interestingly, the systems that tend to be generic are actually heavy. It can only be limited experience that would prompt you to say that D20, GURPS and Hero System are simple systmes. Compare the number of pages that you have to read in any of these (even GURPS Lite is 32 or something, and that's so limited it's laughable), to a game like MLWM, InSpectres, etc, which all match their genres so tightly that they can't be surpassed for playing in them.

So, I guess the question is whether the slight value added here really makes these games worth playing. Don't get me wrong, I love Hero System, and just played recently, in fact (Supers). But I love it because I'm very into exploration of system.

However, I fully realize that, for the same reason that it's a beautiful engine for such exploration, it's also just as detestable to some because of it. Generic games are GM games. By that I mean to say that it's folks like us, GMs, like to tinker with them thinking about the things that we "could" do with them. But when it gets down to actually playing, often the thought experiment doesn't equal the result. Because the players can't see inside our heads, and the system isn't really telling them what sort of play we're looking for. So instead you get some ghost of the play that you were looking for.

That's my observation, and that of a lot of people here. I note that you peg us as some sort of "Forum User" group, as if we don't have regular game groups, and don't actually play face to face. This couldn't be further from the truth. We're not banding here to come up with abstruse theories just to feel superior or something. My play, and I know that of others, has been creatly improved by the observations that we "forum posters" have made. So realize that we're no different than you, other than having had different experiences with RPGs, and you'll be able to understand what we're saying better. I'm detecting quite a bit of an "I'm not one of you guys" attitude. Which just isn't meritied.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: OK, Autocrat, unfortunately you pushed the "Universal" hotbutton, when you've now stated that you want something more limited. What might better be called "generic" in that I think that you mean to say that the system can be applied to any element of any genre equally. I think people should note that this is what he's talking about now.

So, the question then it what about generic games? Do people have problems with them?

Depends on the definitions. Most people are assuming that Universal implies that everyone can use it for every game equally. While Generic as I'm putting it forth here (and as it's been proposed before) means that the game has some slant to it, but that that slant can be put into many different genres.

Hence Sorcerer would never claim to be Universal, in fact in some ways it's very specific of course. But Sorcerer can do Western, Sci-Fi, Fantasy, pretty much any genre you like with equal aplomb. So it's generic in some very significant ways.

Now, there are games like GURPS and Hero System that people say intend to be Universal by the above definition. But Marco and others disagree, and say that generic as defined above is all that's implied. That the Universal in GURPS title only means what I've said Generic means above. That nobody claims that their games are Universal by the above description.

I'm not here to argue any of that. The point is that Autocrat has stated clearly above that he doesn't mean Universal in the definition above, but instead generic. So, further criticisms should at least not discuss the Universal desriptor.

What you're attacking, and what I halfway agree with is that games like GURPS and Hero System are nothing but generic. That is, in trying to "accurately" cover all genres, they miss out on anything other than the base simulation of these things (and incidentally end up by tradition focusing on combat). Sorcerer doesn't fall into this category, because it's got it's generic slants, and a premise. D20 has it's generic slants and loads of player challenge (in theory). Do your criticisms apply to Sorcerer? If not it'e because the definition as generic allows us to disect these things more closely.

Universalis, OTOH, is pretty much only generic. Where I would argue that it's superior to other generic RPGs is in that it actually manages to avoid those accidental biases for the most part - any brought in are the player's own. That said, and I've said this before, any "premise" or "challenge" that exists in the game are created by players. As such they are no different than any game like GURPS or Hero System. I'd feel hypocritical saying otherwise, personally.

Still, Universalis is indispensible because it does generic things in a unique way. The other really big problem with other generic games is that they tend to approach their problems from identical angles. Do I play GURPS or Hero System or Action! or Fuzion or what? So, in that way, the "Typical Generic" system has been done, and anything else is just refinements.

So I think that many of your criticisms are valid, just that they overstate the case. The "retreat" from interesting premises of system do not make these games unplayable. Bland perhaps, but they're perfectly serviceable.

Mike

Well, I never said unplayable. Uninteresting...yes, I would put my name to that...which seems pretty synonomous with your use of "bland" (though I suspect I would more extreme in degree than you on this).

But I still find the Universal/Generic distinction to be of limited value precisely because no one (reasonably) would try to lay claim to the definition of Universal that's been put forth. Which means ALL of these games are "generic" under this naming scheme. Which means one can simply find and replace Universal with Generic in this entire thread, and have exactly the same result. Hense...little value.

But to state it differently, and return to my pie example.

a good design must
a) slice the pie somewhere, and
b) have a defineable reason for why the designer sliced it where he did.

My problem with Universal/Generic games is that they refuse to do 1, the other or both.

They either deny that the pie needs to be sliced at all, or they slice it, but for no good reason other than convenience or historical precedent.

So no, I don't think Sorcerer is a good generic game, because I would never put Sorcerer in the generic category to begin with. It slices the pie quite plainly. It draws the line in the sand and says "THIS is what I'm about" and it drives the game mechanics full bore at that mission statement.


And no, before anyone asks, I don't consider "to be rules light", "to be non genre specific", or "to model reality" to be valid lines to draw in the sand or slices of the pie.

Discussion of the whys and wherefors, should be relegated to another thread entirely.

Valamir wrote: a good design must
a) slice the pie somewhere, and
b) have a defineable reason for why the designer sliced it where he did.

My problem with Universal/Generic games is that they refuse to do 1, the other or both.
...
And no, before anyone asks, I don't consider "to be rules light", "to be non genre specific", or "to model reality" to be valid lines to draw in the sand or slices of the pie.

Your line, his line...you're both talking about preferences here.

Ralph, again, I only made the distinction because people had complained against the definition of Universal that I gave, and which the poster refuted. If you say that Universal doesn't mean that, it doesn't mean that others haven't used that definition. I'm just trying to get those with criticisms that are irrelevant to the thread to stop posting them. If you aren't making the irrelevant claim then you aren't who I'm talking to. The distinction has to be made for the people who you now say are in error as to their definition.

I'd be happy with your definition if you could just get other people to stop using the other one.

You may not have said Unplayable, but you did say:

If the game doesn't slice the pie somewhere, somehow. Then the game is pointless. There is no reason for its existance,...

Autocrat wrote: So, maybe I'm not asking the right questions.... may be I should be asking.... Why don't you like it.... rather than asking for factual ideas, I should refer to preference, because thats all I get, and more importantly, thats what matters the most!

Still, I'm going to bow my head and accept that I'm in a minority, that no matter what I say or do, people will automatically negate what is said or presented, and put their own statements in my place. It's happened so far, and it will keep happening.

So saying, I'll try hard not to mention generic, universal or flexible again.

So thank you all for the posts, yet I doubt if it's worth continueing, as some ne said, the sacks already been beaten empty, so why do it all again without progressing any further?

All right then, now I feel calmer and less provocative..... here goes.

So, after all of this, how about if things are worded differently.....

A flexible and general system of mechanics and rules that are simple to understand and follow, that don't vary or get more complicated, that permits players and DM's to choose the level of detail of Characters, Skills, Equipment etc., that work within a variety of settings, genres, flavours, feels, atmospheres etc. designed for the game.

There, is that more acceptable?

I'm still deeply confused by the response I get, and looking at other such threads, I really am quite worried by the reactions that people have towards this sort of thing!
As far as I'm aware, reading the enormous number of posts on this sort of thing, very few people that are interested in general/universal/flexible/modular systems give negative, nasty, despiriting, aggressive or offensive posts about Setting Specific games, or rules that only permit a single method of play, a single set of mechanics etc. I don't see the screaming out things like restrictive, retentive, limited, short sighted, inhibitive, contrictive, repressed rules or that.
Oh no, not much at all, yet hose that support such games and systems seem to have little problem doing such to us.
Why?
Actually, don't bother!

I'll ask specific questions about specific problems, issues or ideas, and say * to the rest, as people are blatantly biased and non-constructive towards this sort of thing.

So, in future, I will state that the I.N.I. system is a post apocolyptic setting with both archaic & near futuristic technology, Psionics, Arcane, Faith and Conjuration magics, Cybernetics, Netware, Bionics, Bio-genetics, vehicles, Animals, Mechanised units, and a very broad scope of skills.....and hopefully the majority of you will all respond as if the system is indead setting specific and not bash at me.

On a final note, I would like to thank all of you for posting, all comments are read and taken in, (hell, even if I don't like it, theres a use for it!), yet would very much like to thank those that offered insight, defence and explanatory posts, as these were the most useful kind.

Thank you all,
Autocrat!

Autocrat wrote: So, in future, I will state that the I.N.I. system is a post apocolyptic setting with both archaic & near futuristic technology, Psionics, Arcane, Faith and Conjuration magics, Cybernetics, Netware, Bionics, Bio-genetics, vehicles, Animals, Mechanised units, and a very broad scope of skills.....