Universal RPG Systems [Archive]

Menchi

01-16-2002, 05:48 PM

What do you think of them?

I kind of like the idea behind them - have the freedom to create the setting YOU want. But very few ever truly succeed in this. Many peopl like GURPS - but I felt it wasn't actually generic, because every new genre ended up needing new rules for the basic system to be able to handle it...

Any you like In particular?
BESM - it's extremely free-form and flexible. The only downside is that it's more focused on Anime style gaming. But considering that Anime is essentially multi-genre (Not many people seem to be aware that Anime is not a genre in and of itself. Not all Anime is silly, or over the top or even magical/mystical. Some Anime is more realistic than many real-drama TV shows.)

That's pretty much it. I used to like GURPS - but it got too complicated.

What are the benfits of being universal?

Well, as I said. You have complete freedom of expression. Want interdimensional travellers - no worries. Serious character based drama - no problem.

Downsides?

Characters can either be too detailed - as in they take hours to create - or not detailed enough. The same problem hits setting and systems as well.

Have you tried making one?

Yup. It was a bidding point based system. Had heaps of glitches, and now that I'm busy with my new future fantasy system I simply don't have time to fix it. :)

Conan

Patrick Chipman

01-16-2002, 06:44 PM

I'm not a big fan of generic systems, actually. Enough flavor is tied up in the interpretation rules of a game that a pure generic is going to suffer from serious problems when someone tries to adapt it to a different genre. For an example, take a look at GURPS Supers. ;) It is my claim that no generic system can handle all circumstances, primarily because the laws of reality that the system attempts to abstract can vary so greatly between genres.

What I do like is the next logical step of loose binding, which is the metasystem. Metasystems, like the OGL portion of d20 and (cheap plug) System X, provide guidance on how to write a system, rather than attempting to be a complete generic system. They can get away with this and still have compatible systems because they define a flavorless core resolution mechanic and leave the interpretation of those results to game-specific (and thus genre-specific) interpretation rules. The metasystem can even throw in a few interpretation rules of its own to limit itself to certain genres (hit points in d20, for instance).

What I've grown to hate quite a bit are mechanics-in-theory, also known as "system bits." Isolated parts of game systems that have no support from other parts of the game system -- such as spell systems, odd CRMs, and other such entities -- fall into this category, and as they are tied neither to a metasystem nor to a specific setting, they are merely ideas in the void and, as S. John Ross would say, worthless (even if they are interesting on their own).

NPC Alexis Machine

01-16-2002, 07:31 PM

Well,

From a writters point of view I personally much rather spend time actually developing the myrid of rpgs that I have in progress than work on system mechanics many people love doing it.

Working out a new system can be very time consuming and may really draw away development.

For my games I am using the Fuzion system. Mostly cause I feel comfortable with it and its easy to work with and IMO plays well.

From a "developed to sell" point of view its seems more and more than the D20 system (love it or hate it) hold a major part of the rpg consumer market. Players seem to like the system and publishers are all over it.

GURPS can be a win/lose, it seems that STJ loves to support their system but often the books seem more like reference manuals than RPG's.

IMO I think it depends on where you want to take your game. If you plan on just making a free release, well then it probably doesn't matter too much, although having a known system attached will help with player familiarity...give them a reference point and help "entice" them to play.

If you want to sell the game and really want people to buy it, unfortunatly "new system" games don't sell as well as the heralded D20.

My 2 cents.

==========
Alexis Machine==========

NPC Andrew Martin

01-17-2002, 12:21 AM

Chapino wrote:
> What do you think of them?

If they are really, really universal then they're great. If they're poorly designed, I'll just write, "so why not use Fudge (or S)?". :) And maybe I'd point out some common problems that the min-maxers in my play group would point out in an instant if I presented the game system to them.

> Any you like in particular?

I like GURPs for the huge range of setting books. Got some myself, even though I've only been a player. I like Fudge because it's easier to run than GURPs, it's harder to min-max and covers a wider range of settings. S covers a bigger range than Fudge, though more suited to action movie and tv settings -- it's very hard to min-max, and so munchkins and roleplayers behave the same way during play.

> What are the benfits of being universal?

More settings can be played in, there's less or no system learning time, and so on. Just like using a new windows program, which operates in similar ways to other windows programs.

> Downsides?

Sometimes a setting doesn't fit a universal mechanic. My favourite examples are playing gods in a pantheon, or the character in the Amber books by Zelazny.

> Have you tried making one?

Yes. My latest one is Zero System, which is a universal roleplaying game system that doesn't have a system. Instead it relies on the players and GM sharing a context based on the written and spoken game setting, character, place, tool and vehicle descriptions. Zero System is based on dialecting principals more better expressed in the Rebol scripting languages, which is that language has meaning in context. A lot of people fail to understand this at first. Consider the language used in a wrestling tournament or in golf or basketball game, and consider how the meaning of words change depending upon where you are or the context you're in.

> I post this cause I see a lot of people trying to make them, and most are very good. But what they forget is that they should throw in a few premade settings.

Yes. They also usually fail to keep the end in mind and settle for a system that is just "different" or even worse! than what they really need and want.

One of things I have to keep reminding myself is:

Start with the end in mind.

For RPG system design, it means that every mechanic in the system should be devoted to supporting and confirming the setting. Otherwise, you'll end up with a disfunctional game, where Rule-players, Roll-players and Role-players pull the game setting apart. When the game system actively supports the game setting, these types of play style disappear, and all types of player enjoy the game. And that's what I'm sure we all want -- to enjoy the game and time spent together.

> Now I know you already predicted this, and you know what I'm going to say, it's called the URS-Y, you'll hear about soon enough.

I'll be interested in reading about it when it's done.

Can anyone guess what my first line about will be? :D

Or will I read Chapino's work first? :)

BTW, Chapino, your writing has improved markedly. Please keep it up. Thank you for your efforts!

NPC Chapino

01-17-2002, 04:03 AM

Thanks, now if I can only login back to my darn account, well if you want o hear more about the URS-Y I added it to the same thread were I advertise everything, keeping it all in one theread makes it easy to find.

A.J.Gibson

01-17-2002, 07:33 AM

Originally posted by NPC Chapino
What do you think of them?

I think they're great. More specifically, I think there is no need in having a game

Any you like In particular?

Not yet. Working on one (of course). Seen a few on the internet, but most suffer from some huge problem - like requiring a calculator to do anything, or not being truly generic (i.e., they have a single way psionics works, when in reality different people have different ideas about how psionics should work).

What are the benefits of being universal?

No limitations. You don't have someone else's reality or setting shoved down your throat, or someone elses ideas forced on you. You can also be a lot more 'pro-active' when playing, because the rules are already there to support what you want to do. If you're playing something like D&D, and you decide to stage a rebellion, what rules do you use? If you don't mind being at the complete whim of the GM as he or she makes something up on the spot, then fine, but if you're like me, you don't want to be nailed into someone elses idea of genre.

Downsides?

No limitations, so your players can short circuit your plots easily by doing something realistic and logical that you hadn't thought of. Also, you get people constantly assailing you with their belief that the game must reflect the setting, or else 'it won't feel right'. Personally, my feelings are not so easily evoked that I worry about everything I encounter in life having a deeper spiritual meaning, but that's just me. :)

Have you tried making one?

Yes. I won't go into detail, though, unless I'm illustrating a point. I don't want to be like some people and mention my system every thread they post in. :)

I post this cause I see a lot of people trying to make them, and most oare very good. But what they forget is that they should throw in a few premade settings. I mean being Universal is how GURP and Fudge have become so popular, and JAGS has lot of stuff for you to keep busy with making it great, universal with already made settings. Now I know you already predicted this, and you know what I'm going to say, it's calle dthe URS-Y, you'll here about soon enough.

If you think most of the generic RPGs out there, then why make another one? I making, but that's because I think most of the ones out there are crap.

A.J.Gibson

01-17-2002, 07:48 AM

Originally posted by Patrick Chipman
I'm not a big fan of generic systems, actually. Enough flavor is tied up in the interpretation rules of a game that a pure generic is going to suffer from serious problems when someone tries to adapt it to a different genre. For an example, take a look at GURPS Supers. ;) It is my claim that no generic system can handle all circumstances, primarily because the laws of reality that the system attempts to abstract can vary so greatly between genres.

I don't think it's genres so much that are a problem as it is styles of play: gritty, cinematic, combat-heavy, etc. Unless that's what you meant by genres, of course. That's BESM works, because although anime covers so many genres, it's all in the same style. In an anime, attributes are more important that skills, which is why young characters can become war-heroes, whether you're watching Gundam, Lodoss War, or Dragonball Z.

A generic system can be made to deal with this, however. In the above example, you can make attributes be more important by making skills cost a lot more, and therefore not be as worth the investment. Players will then choose to be inexperienced characters with lots of potential, like you're typical anime protagonist. You say that no generic system can 'handle' everything, but you don't really define 'handle'. I think what you mean is that no generic system will ever satisfy YOU. A generic system is obviously possible, because you can always define a system so abstract and so generic that all existing systems are a sub-set of it.

Originally posted by Patrick Chipman
What I've grown to hate quite a bit are mechanics-in-theory, also known as "system bits." Isolated parts of game systems that have no support from other parts of the game system -- such as spell systems, odd CRMs, and other such entities -- fall into this category, and as they are tied neither to a metasystem nor to a specific setting, they are merely ideas in the void and, as S. John Ross would say, worthless (even if they are interesting on their own).

Psionics from first edition AD&D come to mind. Yes, I hate that to, but a degree of isolation is advantageous, as it allows modules to be added and removed. This is good if you have multiple magic systems, because everyone has their own idea about how magic works.

NPC Kuma: The Cookieless

01-17-2002, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by NPC Chapino
What do you think of them?

I happen to fall into that nebulous category of person who believes that no game system (currently) is universal, GURPS included. FUDGE is close, but it also lacks a lot of structure. FUDGE isn't a game in and of itself - it's a meta-game that you can use to wrap around any idea to make *that idea* into a game. At least as I understand FUDGE.

Other universal RPGs, such as GURPS, are universal in that you can make what is normally considered character material out of the sourcebooks. Soldiers, heroes, etc. But what if I want to play a mouse? An amoeba? Universal is universal - if your system is universal, then I should be able to play anything I want, from Strider to a toad. No system does that.

Any you like In particular?

Not as such.

What are the benfits of being universal?

Free parking and one hell of a good cappuccino.

Downsides?

Generic systems can fail to capture a good look-n-feel. A GURPS game, no matter what sourcebook you use, looks and feels like a GURPS game. You can replace the dialog with appropriate dialog from any kind of genre you want, but the feel and flow of the game is identical. Should the look and feel of a swashbuckling game be the same as a gritty WWI game? Prolly not.

Have you tried making one?

Yes and no. At first, Chamber was supposed to be a universal system - and I might be able to wrangle it that way in the future. The core is universal, but again, Chamber is becoming more of a meta-game which wuld then have genre or sourcebook-specific plug-ins that change the way the game is played. It's all very hush hush. :)

Now I know you already predicted this, and you know what I'm going to say, it's calle dthe URS-Y, you'll here about soon enough.

Is this going to answer all of the questions left open from the Marilyn Manson Tour game?

Kuma

Mock

01-17-2002, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by A.J.Gibson
I think what you mean is that no generic system will ever satisfy YOU.

Well, that's really what it all boils down to, isn't it?

I'm not a fan of generic systems either, but honestly it's mostly because I've grown fond of certain games and their systems, and so it's more difficult to maintain the proper clinical distance. I'm not satisfied, personally, on some level, by the generic systems I've seen.

I'm in a discussion in another thread about combat systems, and one we've developed has some conceptual similarities to FUDGE (although the details of the mechanics are different): the obvious question is, "why not use FUDGE?" My answer is, "I read some of it and it just didn't grab me." FUDGE may be the ideal solution for a huge host of situations, but it's unlikely I'll ever use it.

As far as my experience making a universal system, I guess I can say I've tried some -- usually my efforts end up focusing on an element of the system, such as combat, and not on a whole system environment. As far as things I've liked about universal systems, I am appreciative of being able to craft a setting myself in its entirety, although I don't very often actually do that. Also, the potential to take a character and move them almost seamlessly into a new setting is pretty cool.

If I were to name a downside (besides "It just doesn't satisfy me") it's that sometimes I feel like the author is saying "I didn't have time to create an interesting setting, so you figure it out." It may be an utterly subjective feeling--and it may stem from the fact that I read the system and can't come up with a setting myself--but it makes a generic system feel pretty darn generic.

-Mock

NPC

01-17-2002, 10:03 AM

What do you think of them?

I think that they are a godsend. It saves me the trouble of trying to create my own rules or seriously reworking an existing system to match the setting I've developed.

Any you like In particular?

GURPS and an expanded form of Feng Shui are the two I most often work with. By tweaking a few rules here and there over the years, they pretty much cover any type of setting or game style I want to cover.

I own BESM and FUDGE but they don't have enough crunchy bits for my own satisfaction. I might feel different about them I purchased more supplements to them. But I often feel that I am wasting my money purchasing a book that is 95% setting information that I will never use and only 5% game mechanics that would benefit my game.

It is for the above reason that I've never really shown any interest in the Storyteller and Fuzion systems, which seem very setting heavy to me and would seem to require a large investment to consolidate the various rules.

I've toyed d20 and the Chaosism systems (BRP?), and I like the wide range of support and genre types that these systems have been applied to. However there are only a few of my settings that I feel these rules truly excel at.

I've played in several campaigns using the MEGS (DC Heroes, Blood of Heroes) system. And while I agree they do a great job with 4-color super heroics, if I gmed a supers campaign I would prefer it to be more street level or "gritty".

I've also played in WEG's Star Wars and liked what I saw in the d6 system. But using it as a generic would almost be like creating my own system.

I've never really invested in the HERO system beyond Champions 1st edition. Champions was my system of choice during the early 80's, but I've since moved on to less complex systems. If I was reasonably sure enough I could track down enough of the material, it might be something I would look at in the future.

What are the benefits of being universal?

I like to create my own settings. In fact that's why I roleplay. Generics allow me to concentrate more time and effort into my settings and less time an effort into messing with rules or purchasing rpg books in which I only want the mechanics from.

Downsides?

I find it strange that many people dislike some generic systems for the same reason I like them. I like multitudes of optional rules, the more the better.

The biggest downside to generics is that most designers and players are seeking some Holy Grail of a single mechanic or rule system that covers everything. In other words they want one rule to cover several situations. This is just wrong wrong wrong and will never work to the satisfaction of most. Instead I feel a generic system should present several rules to cover one situation and let the GM decide what best meets his needs. BESM and Fudge do this to some extent but not to the level of GURPS which it is my preferred system.

Have you tried making one?

I prefer altering existing systems to creating one from scratch. I found this out after trying for several years to create my own system only to find that someone had already come up with the same type of mechanic and had done a much better job than me to boot.

Ryan Samuelson

01-17-2002, 10:06 AM

I'm beginning to really hate this new forum system.

Ryan Samuelson

01-17-2002, 10:08 AM

I'm beginning to hate this new forum system.

NPC Chapino

01-17-2002, 02:49 PM

The Forums are pissing me off too, i can't log on a nd stay logged one, and my cookies are working! As for the Marilyn Manson Tour Game, as all the Creation Kit games, it's bland, and has no mechanics, just values and info and how keep track of them. In my mind at the time that was a good idea, cause that made every campaign in each game unique to the GM and stuff could change. Most GM's are afraid to take these bland rules and fill in the many holes, or just have something better to do with their time. THe Manson game has enough rules that you don't need to fill in to much, and I have played a few AIM campagns on it due to it's severe simplicity and linearity in plot, it's not a long drag out game, but more of a fun quick intro, I used to get my friend in rpg's, by combing his favorite muscian into rpg's, it worked well, it was fun. URS-Y is generic, and far as i know, long as the it's in the setting you can play just about everything, lot of the porbblems stating I don't see as a problem with the URS-Y, except maybe the rules nnot bring the feel of the setting as a custom tailored mechanics. I create all this crap cause I have fixation on becoming famous, it the reason I like writing stories, programming, acting, and performing music, I'm hoping to become famous in one of them, I do have an ego, remeber.

Patrick Chipman

01-17-2002, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by A.J.Gibson
I don't think it's genres so much that are a problem as it is styles of play: gritty, cinematic, combat-heavy, etc. Unless that's what you meant by genres, of course.

In a very generic sense, sure. However, the genre of "space opera" is quite different from the genre of "fantasy" in the way it works, even if the play style is the same. So, I'll expand my claim and say that the flavor of the world, in the sense of its play style and its genre, is tied up in the interpretation rules.

GURPS, I might add, has an interesting way of handling things. It's not a metasystem, as it contains a lot of interpretation rules and isn't a specification, but it leaves enough interpretation rules open that it can be used in realistic genres and play styles.

You say that no generic system can 'handle' everything, but you don't really define 'handle'.

By "handle" I mean "produce clear and valid results across a wide range of situations in such a way that the results do not violate the parameters of the world, genre, or play style." ;) In other words, you're optimizing Q.

A generic system can be made to deal with this, however. In the above example, you can make attributes be more important by making skills cost a lot more, and therefore not be as worth the investment.

If you do that, you're not truly generic, are you? Not all anime is characterized this way, after all. ;) The above is exactly what I mean when I talk about interpretation rules -- they, not the CRM or the metasystem, carry the flavor of the game, and they aren't necessarily transportable across genres or play styles.

I think what you mean is that no generic system will ever satisfy YOU. A generic system is obviously possible, because you can always define a system so abstract and so generic that all existing systems are a sub-set of it.

If the system were that abstract, it would not produce appropriate results without GM fiat, in which case it violates part of the definition of a "game system" -- specifically the part about being an impartial arbiter that can handle situations in its associated setting correctly (using the definition of handle above). Sure, it'd be generic, but it also wouldn't be a game system -- or it'd be of infinite size, since it'd need a rule to handle every possibility. The more generic and less detailed a system is, the lower its Q value is, generally speaking. (For an explanation of Q value theory, search the old forums. I don't feel like retyping the whole thing here, especially since the definition of handle above gives the gist of it.)

Beyond that, you are correct; because of the way generic systems are, it is highly unlikely one will satisfy me. ;)

NPC Harlequin Jones

01-17-2002, 04:08 PM

I like generic systems. I like the idea of being handed a set of workable rules that I can use with any setting that I can envision. I've never been one to use settings that came with a game or from a book or movie. I always create my own, mixing and matching elements of all the games, books, and movies that I like.

I do think that no system is generic in playstyle. Realism and Heroism are almost opposites, as a realistic game will grind the heroic aspirations of characters to dust relatively quickly. *smirk*

I'm a big fan of Champions/HERO System. I began playing it simply because I wanted to play a superheroes game, then became enamored of the extremely flexible power system. It truly is capable of replicating almost any power or setting.

That said, it isn't always the best choice. It tends toward high-level heroism, and can be too complex for some tastes.

I haven't played BESM or FUDGE, but I have looked over the systems and they seem very good.

I don't particularly like GURPS. I don't like having to choose from N+Inf skills in order to make a character. I prefer a small number of broad skills to a large number of narrow skills (which seems to be the GURPS trademark).

I'm becoming more fond of what Patrick Chipman calls "metasystems" - core rules that let you flesh the rules out to fit your setting. Most cool.

Strange that are very specific to a setting I created...

HJ

--
Bookworms and Bastards
http://www.anwu.org/bnb/

NPC Chapino

01-17-2002, 04:57 PM

Well, when the URS-Y is realesed, you tell me what it is...

Ryan Samuelson

01-17-2002, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by NPC Harlequin Jones
I don't particularly like GURPS. I don't like having to choose from N+Inf skills in order to make a character. I prefer a small number of broad skills to a large number of narrow skills (which seems to be the GURPS trademark).
A while back there was some talk of making cinematic type skills for GURPS in the same vein as the Science! skill from GURPS: Atomic Horror (Melee! Shoot! Spy! etc.). Sadly nothing ever developed from that. But it didn't stop me from adapting the idea and combining vast GURPS sub-skills under a single skill title for certain settings.

NPC Chapino

01-17-2002, 05:52 PM

Gurps SOunds really cool, and looking at the board look like I'm not only person having trouble with their account.

NPC Chris D

01-17-2002, 06:06 PM

Originally posted by NPC Kuma: The Cookieless

Other universal RPGs, such as GURPS, are universal in that you can make what is normally considered character material out of the sourcebooks. Soldiers, heroes, etc. But what if I want to play a mouse? An amoeba? Universal is universal - if your system is universal, then I should be able to play anything I want, from Strider to a toad. No system does that.

Actually, GURPS does that. It has ways of modelling small-size,
four-footedness, and lack of sentience (as well as amorphous
shapes, bodylessness, etc.). You can play a horse, a toad, a
mouse, or an amoeba, with some work with the chargen system
straight out of the core books; and there is a published -- though long out of print -- setting book (GURPS _Bunnies and Burrows_) in which the norm is PC rabbits.

Chris Dicely

Tom B

01-17-2002, 10:31 PM

What do you think of them?

Used to hate them. Particularly after a couple of bad Hero and GURPS experiences (one while playtesting -at- SJG). Then discovered that they can be good as long as you don't assume they are actually universal.

Any you like In particular?

CORPS. Although I've been tempted to try it in a fantasy setting, I've generally used it exclusively for all modern or SF campaigns I've run. It's realism seems to fit those genres better.

What are the benfits of being universal?

Aside from being able to start a game in any genre with less setup and improved player familiarity, I would say that universal systems by their nature are less likely to be wedded to a particular setting (duh). It's easier to use a universal system with a custom setting, even if you don't plan to use the system in any other genre (i.e. the universality doesn't necessarily matter as much as being free from pre-existing setting conventions, such as Harnmaster).

Downsides?

Sometimes those pre-existing setting conventions the non-universal system is wedded to can add a flavor to the mechanics that enhances the setting and campaign. Universal systems tend to be rather flavorless if used for the wrong setting. CORPS adds an appropriate 'feel' to modern-day and SF campaigns due to it's attention to realistic detail. This (IMO) makes it less suitable for a fantasy campaign I would imagine, although I haven't yet run it in a fantasy setting. I've found that most universal settings, although called universal, still have certain genres that they fit more easily.

Have you tried making one?

Only insofar as adapting Fudge to a fantasy campaign. I've found the best use for Fudge (apart from a snack) is in acting as a salve for broken systems. Darkurthe Legends has a great setting, but the rules ended up not working well for us. I adapted Fudge to mimic the Darkurthe mechanics, retaining the 'feel' of the original mechanics (which were well suited to the setting...see above), but worked mechanically much better and more consistently.

threegee

01-17-2002, 10:44 PM

I don't particularly care whether or not a system is 'universal'. As far as I can tell, the word doesn't mean much, anyway, except to marketing drones. I have adapted systems to settings and vice versa. At the point where you've defined universal such that it includes certain systems and excludes others, the definition no longer defines universal in any useful manner. Clearly, the Storyteller System is universal, because several settings have been created using it. Shadowrun in itself contains rules for both fantasy and sci-fi, even though only one setting is provided. HKAT wasn't marketed as universal, but the game is written with the one-shot in mind, where each game session can be set in a different setting and even genre. Yet, each of these systems has its own feel. None of them could possibly be confused with GURPS or FUDGE. Nor could GURPS and FUDGE be mistaken for each other. GURPS is hyper-anal and fairly unrealistic, whereas FUDGE is very free-form, and its different games are unique entities. So, overall, I fail to see why so many people on these boards wet themselves over such a useless idea. Maybe someone can give me a definition of universal that will change my old entrenched and embittered mind.

NPC Chapino

01-18-2002, 03:34 AM

Those are all good points, I'm making one cause I have complex of having to try make one of everything, plus I'd like to standardize some rules for future setting that's I'll create with a real system, not that piece of crap CharSheet I've been basing my games around up till now.

Tom B

01-18-2002, 07:49 AM

To me, 'universal' simply means that it wasn't designed with a particular setting or genre in mind. Harnmaster is not universal because of the way magic use is tied to the magic-user's place in Harnic society. Most systems with classes or professions tend to be tied to a certain setting. There are definitely some systems not marketed as universal that fit this description, and more that could be made universal with a little tweaking. Even without any setting-specific mechanics, though, most will have certain genres that they fit better than others.

ChapinoMuse

01-18-2002, 01:28 PM

Of course, all depends on what the creator thinks, on what genres it will fit with best, you'll realize what the creatoer liked best as you play.

Ben Brown

01-18-2002, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by ChapinoMuse
Of course, all depends on what the creator thinks, on what genres it will fit with best, you'll realize what the creatoer liked best as you play.

If you do a little research, you don't necessarily even have to wait until you start playing.

There are dozens of people who will tell you that GURPS works best for low-tech, more-or-less realistic stuff. that's where its origins are.

Similarly, the Hero system started as a superhero game, and so it tends to favor "cinematic" genres, where it's a whole lot easier to knock someone out than kill them (trying to do so, in the real world, is at best unreliable).

the origins of a system (what it was first used for) will usually say something about that system.

Robert A. Rodger

01-18-2002, 02:35 PM

All in all, I'm starting to think most systems are at best semi-generic. The rules suggest a setting one way or another, even if a map and geography and list of NPCs isn't provided.

D&D is this way. You've never been given a setting with the rules, but the rules demand certain worlds. Worlds in which there's a whole class of people (if you'll forgive the term) who go out and adventure. Wizards and priests will organize themselves in certain ways because of the metaphysics of their magics.

I think GURPS is like this because it definitely lends itself to a certain style over others. Fortunately, it happens to be my favorite style to play.

Sigh... there's nothing like having to spend four rounds turning your griffin around before you're able to make another pass at the minotaur.

Good times... good times.

ChapinoMuse

01-18-2002, 08:04 PM

Well, URS-Y seems to be going in the same direction of GURPS, in the way that circumstance resolution depends on Setting specific skills, and battle and advancement depend on you base statswhich is the real generic mechanics, basically a base, and a method of creating skills for your setting, I hope it's not to much like GURPS.

Jon Doda

01-18-2002, 09:07 PM

I'm torn. On the one hand most games simply don't justify a new, unique system. On the other hand you could say that the fact that a game doesn't justify a new system is a good indicator that it's
entirely derivitive in the first place and not worth writing.

Despite all this I'm currently more or less finished designing my own very generic system which I'm planning on using for some upcoming games, so what do I know :).

ChapinoMuse

01-19-2002, 06:12 AM

Yeah, that's why i think it's good thing, a generic setting doesn't have to fit all genres, it won't be truthfully generic, but that might be better. If their was one system allocated specifically for each genres, you'd get the perfect feeling for that genre and a bunch of settings for it, and each of the systems could be based on the same core rules making learning each one much easier, but why make a completly generic one and strip any personality out of it, if you can do it with personality, plz do.

Patrick Chipman

01-19-2002, 02:45 PM

Heh. You've just described the concept of a metasystem, Chapino. It's a Core Resolution Mechanic (not "core rules," mind you, but simply a dicing system) to which games attach their own interpretation rules. The dicing is the same and the results generated by the dice are the same, but what those success or failure values actually mean are dependent upon the game.

This also allows game designers to continue to produce the rainbow of varied systems that we see today, with the exception that their compatibility with a metasystem requires that they have a certain set of very basic mechanics. I think picking one system (not metasystem) per genre is a bit limiting, though -- just because most people might want to use Storyteller for modern games, for instance, doesn't mean that I want to (and to be perfectly honest, I wouldn't, due to serious flaws in the system that have been addressed in greater depth elsewhere).

Oh yes, and I must remember to mention Sandy's RolePlay20 (www.roleplayengine.org) as an example of a relatively restrictive metasystem, comparable in its limitations to the System X compatible specification. His RollPlay20 is basically a pure metasystem -- a CRM alone without any interpretation rules.

ChapinoMuse

01-19-2002, 07:48 PM

I have complete the URS-Y, tell me what you think, I've finally created an rpg that coveres all three main areas.

Chrachter Creation
Circustance Resolution
Battle

I think this would fit into rules lite game. Tell me if it's similar to anything already out, and what's different, what's good, etc.

Patrick Chipman

01-20-2002, 03:15 AM

The URS-Y seems... well... a bit unbalanced, really. It's also fairly unclear in certain areas. My specific areas of concern are...

* NPC power varies differently from PC power. This might work fine if the goal is to mimic console RPGs, but if the intent is to establish a realistic universe (which console RPGs definitely do not do), this puts a needless metagame influence on the system. Specifically, NPCs have a better chance to hit than PCs whenever the PCs do not wear armor. Conversely, PC armor is far more effective than NPC armor, as the chance to hit reduction per point is different (-16.6% for PC armor versus -8.3% for NPC armor).

* There seems to be a lot of health given how little damage most attacks can inflict. If I'm reading the rules correctly, the best weapons in the game do 3 damage, which means that any combat will take at least 4 rounds to resolve -- more so if armor is involved. Damage also doesn't vary based on hit quality, which is unrealistic.

* Different genders do not mean different statistics unless there's some biological reason for the differential. In humans, there is no such reason, so there is no differential. Do not fall into the trap of The Game That Shall Not Be Named. The lines in the URS-Y about different gender statistics caused the scars from my unprotected exposure to that game to start oozing again.

* Why do offensive skills only do a half point of damage? What possible point would they have, then?

I'm also unclear as to whether you can get an attack and a skill use in the same round, and why resting restores health. The system also completely ignores the possibility of active or passive defenses outside of armor (again, this is unrealistic). The entire thing is also badly edited to the point where reading it causes smoke to pour out of my ears.

So, uh, yeah. I think I'll stick to d20 or System X as metasystems go, thank you very much. ;)

ChapinoMuse

01-20-2002, 08:50 AM

Well, That's exactly how I wanted it, but really, to tell yout he truth, I'm proud of my self, cause I'm only been in the hobby for less than 2 months. I haveated loads of close useless unless your an interpitve genious crap, and URS-Y is the first taht's almost playable and useful.

Skills: Well, as it saids, it only takes a half if you use them offensively, you can also use them to do other actions, but skills are setting specifc so I can't go into detail, but let's say you hada cooking skill, you could use your turn to cook salad out of flowers on the ground to heal yourself.

Yes, I'm going for a very realistic or balanced game, I'm going for more the console feel on paper.

Gender: Well, i don't how many different species people will be playing as, I mean if you were playing a Lion, a female would be faster than a male since she does all the hunting. If you playing as Human you can just set the base stats the same, I just give that option.

Again very consolish, and as I state in the instruction, if you hold out for the skill and attack phase you can rest, only one of three phases you can do something in, it's right their, I mean it's directly said, but it's their, and if epople want to do it different, they can, it's only a suggestion of how to play a campaign.

I don't enjoy over realistic gaming, I enjoy a little bit over the top consolish type play, but I want to do with the open plot of tabletop rpg, and this does the trick. As for the gender thing, not all creatures are equeal with the genders, I mean not every campaign you'll be playing humans, so theirs gonna be differences.

Enemies: Well, they are different, they work differently also, they're bit simplified with whats neccesary, and it's unblanced when something is unblalanced I think it bring a bit more spice.

Health: WHile the player charachter start 10 damage and get to 100, the enemy can have anywhere from 1-100. Now again the console feel comes in, in a game usally you don't get close to killed in every encounter, but you get wear and tear from many. And I hope no gives over 10 health to enemies that isn't a boss or major charachter. I mean you can have 50 damage, maybe lose 5 in a battle with a horde of 1 health enemies, I mean it works out if you don't have the PCs resting everywhere. It's up to the GM to regulate so the rules don't get abused.

ChapinoMuse

01-20-2002, 01:10 PM

Well, i was bored so I started typing another System Menu, by I'm breaking my traditions, and using D10's for this one. It's a lot more detailed and balanced hopefully that the URS-Y, but chance are it's capabilites of genres best fits a metasystem due to it's detail, well you'll see when i finsih, and youg uys tell me what you though, i'm gonna keep writing a systems still i get one people really like.

ChapinoMuse

01-21-2002, 11:22 AM

Well, Chipman I deceded to go back and edit the URS-Y manual to adress those area you mentioned somewhat, mostly to make a few fuzzy area clearer, and to keep things really clearn I put the beginng of the UMBO scenario as a example of how the system work a teh end.

Umbo is going be my sort of mascot throguhout all the manual for all my systems, each manual will contnue his adventure according to the system so you can see how each system plays. RIght now I'm working on The PARS, and when it's complete I'll put it up and then I will work aon another system and continue more of Umbo story tehir, sort of a hook to make you read all of them if you like the story. I bet your saying why are yo making all these damn systems, their way more than enough avaiable, and most of them are crap. Well, I am obsessive with creating things, so I don't care if they're never used they're be their if one perosn find it and decides to use it, that's cool. I just like maing things.

NPC Belac

01-21-2002, 12:40 PM

You said you've been in the hobby two months. You've been making RPGs for just two months, or just playing RPGs in general for only two months?

Either way, your ability to continuously create games and improve at a fast rate is impressive.

Anyway, one note about the console feel:

I used to use that PCs and NPCs are different mechanically thing, but I've found that its easier to balance sometimes when they're similar.

One trick if you do want to have different rules for each is have the differences be something you can quickly trim off if one becomes the other. (It also often helps to treat NPCs that are allies of the PCs as PCs for rules purposes.)

-Belac the Rambler

ChapinoMuse

01-21-2002, 12:42 PM

Okies, I just finished Creating The PARS which a lot less Generic than URS-Y, but I guess a bit more to what you were talking about in your quarrels with the URS-Y. The Revised URS-Y is now at ybull.net and so is The PARS, which I'm surprised came out so cool... even though I think I went into a little to much detailed and charachter creation miight be a pain. Now I am gonna make DotB (Day of the Bull), this system runs as sort of universe setting, since it applies to a universe any setting can be in that universe possibly since Universes are ifninitley large, so Dotb will be generic system/ slash setting, you'll see when it's complete.

ChapinoMuse

01-21-2002, 12:45 PM

And yeah, I bouhgt Mage, read it, played a quik session and began writing games up, that was my first week in the hobby. I always knew about the hobby, and wanted to amke a game for it, but all I knew about was DnD, when I fnally bought Mage and played it I finally was actually in the hobby instead of eyeing from afar and wish I was, kinda like window shopping.

Ben Brown

01-21-2002, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by ChapinoMuse
And yeah, I bouhgt Mage, read it, played a quik session and began writing games up, that was my first week in the hobby. I always knew about the hobby, and wanted to amke a game for it, but all I knew about was DnD, when I fnally bought Mage and played it I finally was actually in the hobby instead of eyeing from afar and wish I was, kinda like window shopping.

Well, I can't say you haven't come to the right place. We've got some experienced types around here, both designers, and those who have played lots of different games and can tell you if something you've come up with has worked or failed noticeably before. This will prevent you from re-inventing the wheel and declaring it a revolutionary innovation (see SenZar and such for examples)

Still, some questions remain:

1) Had you played any RPGs (incl. D&D) before you "entered the hobby"?

2) Do you have a gaming group?

3) Are you just out to create a game of any sort, or do you have a particular world/genre/style you wish to simulate?

I wish you luck with your game-building, but I'm a bit curious as to exactly where you're coming from with this.

ChapinoMuse

01-21-2002, 04:01 PM

1) Had you played any RPGs (incl. D&D) before you "entered the hobby"?

The lcosest to it I ever came before is playing Bladurs Gate 2,a nd playing the really old DnD PC games like Way to Savage Frontier and Pools of Darkness, realy old games when I was like 8.

2) Do you have a gaming group?

Yes, Me, My brother and cousin, each of GM one game.

Me: Mage, I'm the only one who uses a lot of detail, and theatric in his campaigns.

Cousin: W:tA, he tried to give off that dark serious gloom, but he just doesn't get it yet

Bro: Exalted, we've only made out charachters and got nothing done yet, I diceded to stop gaming till each of us have written bio on our charachters, cause the blaness of my cousins game really called for it

3) Are you just out to create a game of any sort, or do you have a particular world/genre/style you wish to simulate?

Well, I first tried making a genreic ssytem and games for it, before I knew generic systems existed, I though I was special, but really all it was a charachter sheet... and the game made for it were variant of the charachter sheet that tell you how to create you chrachter with no mechnanics.

Then I made Greolia, a game with that plus circumstance resolution, but no battle mechanics, it's runs on theatircs, it's sort of fun, playable.

THen I started on the BioFreak Exapnsion for WoD, since 2/3 of my game group gm WoD. I've only made Wereleech so far and started working on 5.0, but havn't done much with it yet.

THen I fianlly understand what makes a generic system, so I created URS-Y and The PARS and am working on DotB. WHy am I making them, cause of my ego, I have a overwhelming need to create things that remebered, not for bad or good reasons, but rmebered. But I'm not going to resmble to the lengths of the game that will not be mentioned get this remeberance. I mean in the world of RM2k, I'm universally remeber for Baker Quest a game where you get chased by the door, and that's probably the par tthat makes the most sense, and for the fact that I have the largest library of created game in that hobby.

Well, ihope that maybe on or to GRS's will get some accliam one of these days, and if I keep pumping them at this rate, I should get one worth using before my 17th birthday, then I can move on to something else and leave my mark their. Baisclaly I'm powered by my overwheliming ego and need to make myself valuable.