What sort of techniques to people like to use when they are designing game systems to support the genre they intend to use the system in?

It's obvious (to me, at least), that the presence of genre-appropriate subsystems alone isn't enough to establish genre. How many "psionic" systems have we seen that are just magic systems with a bit of chrome tacked on? So, "you need to add a magic system if you're going to emulate fantasy" isn't a good answer. (Of course, if the magic system is packed with the sort of flavour you want to infuse your game with, that's a different matter.)

Similarly, while naming the elements of your system appropriately is obviously important (on an aesthetic level, rolling your "spiritual fortitude" can feel very different from rolling your "psychological integrity", even if they use the exact same mechanics), that's just cosmetic stuff. I want to talk about actual mechanics here.

Robin Laws does an excellent job with the basic task resolution system of the Dying Earth RPG - it's essentially entirely random, and all having a higher skill in a particular area does is give you more rerolls until you have to give up and accept your fate. As such, it does a fantastic job of providing the sort of dramatic reversals of fortune that's a hallmark of Jack Vance's work whilst not rendering your character build irrelevant. It's intimately tied to the genre (Vancian adventure) it wants to emulate, so much so that I wouldn't consider using it in different genres. (Okay, you could use it to run games in some of Vance's SF settings, but the feel of Vance's fiction is so distinctive it actually matters little whether you're running in fantasy, SF, or science fantasy.)

A related question: what do people here think about generic systems? I used to think they weren't viable, based on my experiences of GURPS. (No matter what you do with GURPS, to me the resultant game always feels... like GURPS.) Then I saw FUDGE, and all of the things people are doing with it (yeah, it's more of a toolkit for producing games, but it does have a core task resolution system which remains more-or-less constant), and I realised how well Chaosium's BRP system has done when applied to modern-day occult horror, fantasy of various flavours, Larry Niven's hard SF...

But then again, BRP and FUDGE are both reasonably rules-light systems. Whenever people are praising CoC, for example, they tend to dig the setting and the investigation structure more than the actual system. At most, they say that it "disappears into the background", which is actually not a bad thing when you want a rules-light system - being there what you want it and not there when you don't is a great virtue.

So, theory: a generic RPG must, before genre-specific subsystems are added, be rules-light. The more detail you add, the more assumptions you are making about the genre, and so the less generic you get.

Any counter-examples of successful rules-heavy generic games?

I think there's some crossover with the Ethics in Fantasy thread where I'm talking about designing game systems to support basic morality (eg. Heroic Fantasy).

I think a game will be more successful if you consider the genre / theme at a very low-level.  If you put "hit points" (or whatever equivalent) in a game, it makes some basic assumptions about what's going to happen in that game -- physical injury / fatigue.  A generic system with Hit Points wouldn't be a good choice for a genre that didn't include that element... say, Candyland: The RPG.

I think that rules are most successful in evoking a particular genre when they encourage the players to act and perceive in patterns that are recognizably of the genre.  Your example of how Dying Earth puts the players into the position of trying and trying, but ultimately (sometimes) having to surrender to the inevitable is a great one.

Similarly, any game that purports to simulate the comic book genre should be a game where the players tend to play with arms akimbo and chins high, declaiming their dedication to Truth, Justice and the American Way.

If the characters are so scared that they're wetting themselves, but the players are just coolly manipulating the numbers, then your rules have not (to my way of thinking) evoked the horror genre.

I can think of three generic systems that I really like.  None is 100% generic, but I'll list their faults and some thoughts.

First, GURPS, the love of my gaming life, who is cursed to be played only rarely.  GURPS is not really all that generic, it does feel like GURPS when you play it.  What it does for me is give me a rules set that's awesome for gritty, realistic settings.  GURPS is awesome for modern day drama, Historical Fiction, Alternate History, Hard Scifi, and emulating Frederick Forsyth.  I like the grittiness and veneer of realism that GURPS provides.  I think it's a really good fit for normal people in extraordinary circumstances.  Unisystem is a close second to GURPS, but the similarities preclude me from including it on this list.  I use Unisystem as my GURPS Lite, so to speak.  

Prime Time Adventures is another of my favorite generic systems.  It allows me to create a cool game with my friends and can emulate any genre that fits TV.  Which pretty much covers anything a gamer would want to play.  I've used it for softer Scifi, gritty War, and Pulp Action.  It's worked wonderfully every time.  It doesn't work for everyone and it takes a small paradigm shift in the way you play, but it's a good generic system nonetheless.

My Third, and never played, is Mortal Coil.  I have yet to play it, but it's a generic system as long as you include magic in your world.  Really, you could change "Magic" into something else entirely and lose the thematics but keep the system and make it even more generic.  I like the system, but have yet to try it, so I am just adding it for completeness' sake.

Also, I'll throw d20 over here as a non-generic system that became one by accident of design.  It's not my favorite, although some adaptations work very well for non-fantasy genres.  Mongoose Publishing makes some great adaptations of d20 for instance.  Their Starship Troopers RPG I thought was awesome, system wise...and I don't like d20 all that much.

Warthur, I tip my hat to you. Or I would, if I owned a hat.

This is a good thread, much more about what I was thinking the forum should be for/about.  And you even chose a subject dear to my heart, "emulation of genre", which is what I think theory should REALLY center on, not the nonsensical bullshit about "play agendas" that GNS and its ilk focus on.

Let me also say that I agree with your theory as stated, and cite D20 as an example. Some could argue that D20 doesn't go far enough, that certain parts/complexities of the rules make it difficult for certain genre emulation.

And that's a valid point.  

At the same time, I think one thing your theory has to explore is whether there's a limit on the OTHER side to your statement? At what point do rules become SO rules-lite that they actually work against the ability to build in genre-specific rules to modify the game to fit emulation?

RPGPundit

Quote from: WarthurSo, theory: a generic RPG must, before genre-specific subsystems are added, be rules-light. The more detail you add, the more assumptions you are making about the genre, and so the less generic you get.

Any counter-examples of successful rules-heavy generic games?

I disagree with this part but will concede that it is easier from a designers POV to work with a light system but then implement subsystems. This is not how I have done it. The systems I have worked on emphasize extensibility. For instance, take a skill system and in the general rules include a comprehensive skill list. They must be general skills so "Targeting Laser Pistol" does not work but a "Targeting" that can specialize in Laser Pistol or Short Sword does.

As to genre specific aspects, I do add elements but they are usually extensions of existing rules. For instance, I have a Psi system for my Sci-Fi setting. It uses my Free Form magic system since that fit the best. Again, existing rules to the core system that are extended to the implementation of the setting.

Now, I think the best way to immerse players and GMs in the setting is to provide plot devices within the setting. Show them different ways to make characters that fit (character seeds, templates) and what they can do (adventure seeds, modules) and then allow them to extend the ideas at the table or in prep.

Bill

Quote from: RPGPunditLet me also say that I agree with your theory as stated, and cite D20 as an example. Some could argue that D20 doesn't go far enough, that certain parts/complexities of the rules make it difficult for certain genre emulation.

Well, D20 is blessed with a reasonably simple core resolution mechanic. The complexity really comes in when you add the skills and spells and feats and classes... which are precisely the things you'll need to redefine when you're applying it to a different genre.

QuoteAt the same time, I think one thing your theory has to explore is whether there's a limit on the OTHER side to your statement? At what point do rules become SO rules-lite that they actually work against the ability to build in genre-specific rules to modify the game to fit emulation?

I think all you really need is a solid and sufficiently genre-neutral core mechanic; once you have that, you can build on that core to produce any subsystem you need. HinterWelt's comments about extending pre-existing mechanics to cover genre-specific game elements are bang on the money here; it's how FUDGE encourages you to do it, it's how the better GURPS and D20 supplements do it, it's how Chaosium did it with Cthulhu and Stormbringer and Ringworld. (Even Nephilim, which adds a heap of new ideas and subsystems to BRP, bases most of its innovations on solid BRP principles.)

On the other hand, not all core mechanics are created equal; to go back to the Dying Earth example, it would be ludicrous to apply the central mechanic from that game to, say, Cthulhu.

So, first characteristic of a good core mechanic for a generic game: it needs to be as bland as possible. Note that "bland" and "boring" are two different things - by all means, the core mechanic should be exciting, but it should also strive to be flavourless. Any bias, flavour, or theme you add to the core mechanic is going to infuse every other part of your game.

D20: Roll a 20-sider. Add modifiers. Compare with the GM-declared difficulty.
BRP: Roll 1d100. Add modifiers (which may include a GM-declared penalty). Compare with skill level.
Myriad dice-pool systems: Roll dice pool. Count successes. Compare with GM-declared difficulty.
FUDGE: Roll FUDGE dice. Add or subtract the result from your skill/attribute level and compare the result to the GM-declared difficulty.

At the end of the day, those are pretty bland resolution mechanics. The flavour creeps in with the modifiers, and the difficulty levels. The difficulty or ease of particular actions is going to influence the flavour of a game, as will the sort of factors you can bring to bear to modify your dice rolls - and so when you are adapting your system to a particular genre you can add flavour by adding appropriate modifiers. Buff spells and curses in fantasy, cybernetic enhancements and nanotechnological plagues in cyberpunk, you get the idea.

Compare with the Dying Earth's system, where the most important influence on your roll is going to be how many rerolls your skill pools give you - and that is inherent in the system. Take out the reroll pools, and you've broken the system horribly. The rerolls - as well as the arbitrary nature of the roll itself - inject a fat dose of flavour into the core mechanic, which - as I specified above - is going to permeate the rest of the game.

Your game's core mechanic is like its veins and arteries; anything you inject into them is going to affect the entire game.

One last point: FUDGE pulls a clever trick with its core mechanic, because the action resolution system yields descriptors instead of numbers - and the interpretation of those descriptors can vary from campaign to campaign. A "Good" combat result in a high-power superhero game is going to have radically different effects from a "Good" combat result in a gritty and grimy low fantasy campaign. That's where I feel GURPS falls down - a 100 point hero wielding an ordinary sword is going to behave exactly the same regardless of what campaign world he's working in.

Quote from: WarthurI think all you really need is a solid and sufficiently genre-neutral core mechanic; once you have that, you can build on that core to produce any subsystem you need. HinterWelt's comments about extending pre-existing mechanics to cover genre-specific game elements are bang on the money here; it's how FUDGE encourages you to do it, it's how the better GURPS and D20 supplements do it . . . .

FWIW, the "modify the existing mechanics/traits" idea is a High Priority in GURPS Fourth Edition.

Quote from: WarthurSo, first characteristic of a good core mechanic for a generic game: it needs to be as bland as possible. Note that "bland" and "boring" are two different things - by all means, the core mechanic should be exciting, but it should also strive to be flavourless. Any bias, flavour, or theme you add to the core mechanic is going to infuse every other part of your game.

GURPS: Roll 3d6. Apply modifiers. Compare with skill level.

Quote from: WarthurThat's where I feel GURPS falls down - a 100 point hero wielding an ordinary sword is going to behave exactly the same regardless of what campaign world he's working in.

With liberal use of wildcard skills, cinematic advantages (like Trained By A Master), a couple of optional rules (like modifying success with CP), and ignoring most of the realistic task modifiers, your 100pt hero can be pretty over the top. In the opposite direction, if you use the optional bleeding rules, track modifiers for every environmental element, and bring out the tactical map, your experience is going to be far more "grim 'n gritty."

The trick, IME, with GURPS is using only those rules which are relevant to your genre, campaign, and group.

I think the entire point of a generic system is that it is set in a given genre and is used to create a wide range of settings.  While most games can be broken down to a very simple mechanic that defines them d20, percentile, fate dice, 3d6 - whatever the randomizer is.  That is not the point at which the game really begins.

If you take a look at D20 as it is at it's hear a generic game (well it is now).  The genre never really changes.  If you add on Ken Hood's Grim and Gritty rules or play True20 you have different genre's on how D20 works.  They also work at different degrees of a successful game.  True20 is pretty playable and presents a system that is more easily modified then D20 yet regardless of what you do to it has it's own set of trappings.

Sticking Ken Hood's G&G rules on D20 will certainly make it more deadly but it doesn't do a good enough job at addressing all the rules that start to break down once you tack that modifier on.

So if you are truly designing a generic RPG capable of duplicating multiple Genre's, I think your going to end up with either a rules light RPG that is akin to not really having a set of rules at all beyond having the Trump GM's call rule in effect.  On the other hand you could start with a base mechanic to create your randomizer.  Then start putting pages of building blocks on top of it so if you want a more heroic game the randomizer as your abilities increase.  If you want a grittier game the randomizer is as close to 50/50 as you can get with your stats making up the success/fail.

You'd then start taking other rules on top of that, do you want a sanity rule, a fate system, a narrativist system, a meta system etc...etc... In the end you'd have a custom built RPG based on a list of tick boxes as you go through the book.  That alone would be a pain in the ass and in the end of the day it's still going to feel different then a game that was built from the ground up to work in whatever genre you are trying to emulate.

Bottom line the game is the genre no mater how you cut it and no two systems even if designed for the same genre are going to feel the same.

Well I'm not sure where this discussion should go.

I think that a good generic RPG can with a GM whose willing to shape the descriptions, 'local color', and the like fulfill the role of the genre emulation rules to a point. But there reaches a point where it becomes problematic.

Many supers games can be used quite generically because they have to cover rules for everything from giant robots to caped crusaders, to martial artists, to horror creatures, fantasy monsters, etc.

The problem of course is if superhero games are just generic games with a bit of "top flavor" for superheroes, they are missing quite a bit of the comic books handling of things. Hero doesn't even try (in spite of having a HUGE book to do supers universe) the rules really don't try to not be generic, and force all the superheroic 'comic' out in a pursuit of balanced blandness. Mutants and Masterminds 1E was similar, a few more bits to add flavor to "superheroes over everything else"--2E improved this in some ways and screwed the pooch in other ways.

Then there are games like Hearts & Souls, my game, and it isn't really "generic", its not meant to be, the genre rules emulate comic book action. Sure there are similarities that can be drawn in other settings/game styles (High Fantasy), but that's more a similarities of tropes in the source medium, rather than a blandness of the rules.

Truth & Justice uses a highly adapted version of the PDQ system which IS generic in essence, but added aspects (Hero Points, Damage as comic book plot hooks) that is a little closer to being a pure genre game than not (its leaning over the line more so than M&M ,Hero, Savage Worlds, and similar games.


The onus of making the latter games feel like they are about superheroes is often left to the GM--this isn't always a bad thing, but it does make for more work for the GM's brain in play.  One of the problems I've seen for Hero for example is that the GAME speak, is so intricate and involved that it takes time and brainpower away from the 'comic book' aspects of play. "Xd6 energy blast" is more important than "the scintillating spectrum of rainbow lensed light lashes out and lays low Doctor Demon!"


In my FRPG (High Valor), I wanted the name to mean something, I wanted the rules and play to speak to how things resolved specifically because of similar reason.

Fantasy NOVELS, I've enjoyed often aren't about the "plus X swords" or having to track spells carefully*. They are about the risks that are taken, the courage (or lack of it.), discovery of places, peoples, plots and ones own inner strengths. I think its possible to create a game that helps you focus play on those elements. Without being too wierd/scewy--still being solid game in the classic RPG sense.



*Except of course the Guardians of the Flame book "The Sleeping Dragon" it was a blast but was based on D&Dish gamers being sucked into the bodies of their characters in a "real' fantasy world. Silly, sometimes dark, fun.

Quote from: PaulChapmanGURPS: Roll 3d6. Apply modifiers. Compare with skill level.

Thanks, I would have included GURPS there but I'm not up on the current edition.

QuoteWith liberal use of wildcard skills, cinematic advantages (like Trained By A Master), a couple of optional rules (like modifying success with CP), and ignoring most of the realistic task modifiers, your 100pt hero can be pretty over the top. In the opposite direction, if you use the optional bleeding rules, track modifiers for every environmental element, and bring out the tactical map, your experience is going to be far more "grim 'n gritty."

The trick, IME, with GURPS is using only those rules which are relevant to your genre, campaign, and group.

I only ever experienced 3rd edition GURPS, but it struck me that part of the problem was that a lot of the "core" quirks and skills in the main rulebook actually weren't "generic" at all - in pricing, or in description. A terminal illness in a highly realistic game is going to screw you. A terminal illness in a "cinematic" game? That's just a plot hook to get you to investigate that mysterious medical lab!

Quote from: SilverlionThe problem of course is if superhero games are just generic games with a bit of "top flavor" for superheroes, they are missing quite a bit of the comic books handling of things. Hero doesn't even try (in spite of having a HUGE book to do supers universe) the rules really don't try to not be generic, and force all the superheroic 'comic' out in a pursuit of balanced blandness. Mutants and Masterminds 1E was similar, a few more bits to add flavor to "superheroes over everything else"--2E improved this in some ways and screwed the pooch in other ways.

Yeah, I don't think a generic RPG can ever serve a specific genre better than an RPG designed with that specific genre in mind - D20 needed heavy tweaking (in the form of D20 Modern) before it became viable for modern-day gaming.

On the other hand, if I'm designing a game and I don't have a whizzy idea for something clever I can do with the system to make it really flavourful, I'm often tempted to say "Screw it, I'll run it with BRP/FUDGE/True20/whichever generic system happens to fit what I want to do best." There's been a sweep of standalone RPGs published lately which simply use someone else's system - OGL/D20 is the most obvious example. but there's also D6, the Action! system, the Fuzion system, FUDGE, GURPS...

The idea that you necessarily have to have a unique system for your standalone RPG seems to have been undermine, and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing if the major feature of your game is the setting rather than a system. A|State is a prime example of this - the game presents you with a lovingly-detailed setting which you can pretty much run straight out of the box, whilst the system is something of an afterthought and shows a heavy BRP influence - enough that I've added various BRP-flavoured tweaks to the system pretty much seamlessly. Contested Ground may as well have just used BRP; Chaosium have proved happy in the past for other people to use their system, it'd have garnered interest from folk who enjoy BRP, and people who hate BRP wouldn't have liked the system anyhow.

Quote from: WarthurI only ever experienced 3rd edition GURPS, but it struck me that part of the problem was that a lot of the "core" quirks and skills in the main rulebook actually weren't "generic" at all - in pricing, or in description.

Oh, so you were only talking about GURPS 3e. That's different. I assumed, since you didn't qualify your statements, that you were talking about the current edition.

Fourth Edition is a distinct step towards "generic toolkit."