The Forge Archives

I wanted to know what the general consensus is on designing games for universal and established systems.  I usually design things using an existing system already to known to my target audience...specifically, my friends who are going to be playing it.  This is mainly to get them to play, because they normally don't want to learn a new system.  I do have one friend who is opposed to the idea of universal systems.  "When I play a new game, I want to play a new game," is how he put it (yes, he's a gamist).  Personally, I've always hated that I have to learn an entirely new system every time I want to play a new game.  I do think system matters in that certain system elements can enhance the particular themes of the game, so I still like some variation between genres as well.  But I really don't want to have to write new skill selection, combat progression, and weapon charts for every idea I get.  Most of what I do these days uses Storyteller system.  Obviously this would be a copyright problem if I wanted to publish.  But what other opinions do people have on this?

Hi Scourge,
The topic of "universal" systems is a hot-button for a lot of folks. What seems to work best for most people is "universal core mechanics". That is, games that share their basic systems, but are customized to fit.

White Wolf's Storyteller System is a great example. If you've played one of their games, you know the basics of all the others. There are new things to learn, but the learning curve is pretty small.

A game like the Hero System seems more like a universal system. The thing is, it really is just universal core mechanics that the gaming group needs to customize themselves. If you want to play Star Wars in Hero, someone has to do the work of building abilities to simulate force powers, lightsabers, etc. The benefit is that any Hero System game is readable by any experienced player. It has strong metamechanics.

D20 can be said to be universal, but if you don't know what a particular feat or class ability does, it may as well be another game entirely.

As far as making your own game, I would say that the best bet is to figure out what your goals are, then determine whether those goals can be satisfied using any existing system. Usually the answer is no, so you should make your own mechanics to fit.

I seem to be rambling, so I'll stop. I hope there's something helpful to you in here.

in general opinion isn't very helpful for you here, I think.  I mean, are you in doubt as to your and your groups preferred methods of play?  It sounds like you want to stay with a known system so you can focus on your settings because that's what interests you about play.  That's perfectly okay.

There are some games out there where the system is integrated to such a degree with the nature of the game that it really loses somthing to try to play it with anything else.  My Life With Master and Sorcerer and Riddle of steel all come to mind in this regard.  But many, many games aren't like that, they instead write a detailed setting and give a system which is essentially interchangable.  The list of such games is endless.

There is nothing inherently wrong with such games, and I have known and experienced many 'system swaps' with those games because I liked one generic system and its mechanics over another.

The only thing I suggest is important is that every system rewards players behavior in certain ways, encouraging a certain mode of play.  By and large these are xp that are awarded for the purpose of increased character effectivness.  What are the areas generally modeled for effectiveness in such games?  Combat, Skills and Powers.  How do you gain most xp, by using Combat, Skills and Powers.

Its a loop that many games encourage unconciously because that is how its always been done. And, as many  have suggested, it may not be rewarding (and thus reinforching) desirable behaviors in many cases.  Consider the reward systems in MLWM and TROS compared with D&D 3.5 or Storyteller.  Different rewards, different play.

Check out the article in the recent Deadalus issue.  The column on page 105 called 'A Universe of Generic Games.'

As far as what you are talking about as far as publishing.  Many games share very similar mechanics.  What I've been told (thought I don't know for sure) is that Game mechanics can't actually be copyrighted.  Entire systems, perhaps, and terms...but not individual mechanics.  And you'll find that many games use similar ones.

hope that helps.

regards,

Trevis

Actually, the system I use is Storyteller at the moment.  For one thing, all my ex-Vampire playing friends know it.  Chargen is pretty simple, and it has the reality and flexibility I want in the combat system.  Plus all the ST games seem to have their own game mechanics to simulate (I'm pretty much a Simulationist) whatever elements are relevant to the game at hand.  They're always right down by Willpower on the character sheet:  Humanity and Blood for Vamps, Rage and Gnosis for Werewolves, Arete/Enlightenment, quintessence, and Paradox for Mage, etc.  I made some mechanics of my own for my particular game.  I'm not sure it's really what my gaming group is interested in as much as I am, however.  But I still think I have a good idea or two, and would like to pursue it more.  I'm wondering if I should keep what's mine and scrap the system in favor of a completely home-brewed one, or what.  I recall someone putting a Highlander game with the ST system online a few years back, but the link is broken now.  That was sort of what I had in mind originally, I'm just not sure if that would really work if I wanted to maybe actually publish it someday.

The way I look at it, you need what I need to find..... a poll/questionaire report or something that has been conducted and produced answers about peoples prefences along the lines of prefered resolution methods, prefered playing styles etc.
  Anyone know of such a thing?
  Then again, tailorign systems to meet the wants of the majority as the only reason takes out the personal input!
  Altering you own system to lean towards it is personally more gratifying, yet may not be marketable!
  Awkward place to sit on that fence!

Quote from: Trevis MartinWhat I've been told (thought I don't know for sure) is that Game mechanics can't actually be copyrighted.  Entire systems, perhaps, and terms...but not individual mechanics.  And you'll find that many games use similar ones.

Copyright applies to the description of the "mechanic". This means that if someone writes a description of how to roll dice, add an attribute, then a skill number, then this description is automatically protected by copyright in the USA, protected by copyright in most western countries if a copyright statement is present, and not protected in China, IIRC. :)

If one understands the mechanic of rolling dice, adding an attribute number, then a skill skill number hoping to beat a GM determined target number, and, provided one is capable of writing, then you can write your own expression of how to roll dice, add an attribute, then a skill number, and have that protected by copyright.

I hope that helps clear that up.

Quote from: AutocratThe way I look at it, you need what I need to find..... a poll/questionaire report or something that has been conducted and produced answers about peoples prefences along the lines of prefered resolution methods, prefered playing styles etc.
  Anyone know of such a thing?
  Then again, tailorign systems to meet the wants of the majority as the only reason takes out the personal input!
  Altering you own system to lean towards it is personally more gratifying, yet may not be marketable!
  Awkward place to sit on that fence!

I agree with Autocrat. Fence sitting is uncomfortable. Far easier to design the game system so that you like it and love it. Don't bother with designing "for the masses", because as shown in so many design areas like cathedral design, Lockheed skunk works, Soul of a New Machine and other books on design, works that the masses will value start out by pleasing just one person, the designer. Simply be uncomprising.

Being the author of a genuinely universal/multiversal game, I was going to skip this thread; but I think I'll answer it anyway, because my answer may surprise.

I think that it's important for game mechanics to support the specific goals of a game, and that means supporting the intentions of setting.

Even White Wolf recognizes this; you've pointed out that for each variant of the Storyteller system there are tweaks that attempt to support (with varying degrees of success) what that version of the game is about. You need to recognize that what you're trying to accomplish and how you're approaching it will always be linked.

Now, if all you want to do is create a bunch of different settings for characters to explore so the players can say, wow, that's neat, then you need a mechanic that makes such exploration possible, and it doesn't really have to change much from world to world. Multiverser goes beyond that, in two ways.

First, it's an engine that inherently adapts all its success probabilities to fit the setting. If you go for swords and sorcery, you're going to bring technology down so that it doesn't work well and boost magic to significant levels, so that players will be encouraged to rely on magic rather than technology in that world. In a sci-fi world, you'll reverse that, maybe also bringing up the psionics (or maybe not) to get the kind of play you really want.

Second, Multiverser interfaces with other games. It's the only game I know that does this. Because we recognized that a large part of V:tM and D&D and so many other games was the flavor they derived from their system, Multiverser included a core concept of injecting player characters into the other systems, having them essentially become characters in the other games under the rules of the other games, with Multiverser rules filling in gaps where needed. That is, although we designed a universal engine that could run any kind of world (and, I think, better than what was already out there), we still recognized that the mechanics of particular game systems were important to making those worlds come alive, and in essence wrote a game that could incorporate any other game within itself.

Thus I am committed to supporting the design of innovative game systems that truly capture the worlds for which they are designed. I hope all of you designers out there will continue to provide these wonderful ideas, in part because as they come out they make Multiverser that much richer ;).

--M. J. Young