Quote from: Jason Morningstar;326093I like this idea.  I'm fond of the linear even-numbered scale from d4 to d12, which strikes me as an elegant progression ripe for a variety of uses.  The notion that you can adjust the distro to model different tones is really cool, and I can totally see it working well, even intuitively - if you tell the players they are a d6 to your d8, that communicates a lot about the world. A one die size difference is going to have a pretty dramatic impact on effectiveness.

Thanks.  

Although we may not agree on a definition of RPGs, you guys use mechanics just as much as us. What are some of your cooler ones, what do they do, and why?

Quote from: Monster Manuel;326180I know, but can you think of any generic games that do it well?

What games count as generic for you?

I did mean the question fairly- it's not a rhetorical maneuver.

When I say generic, I mean an RPG that bills itself as universal, general use,  or good for just about any type of game. Even if it is geared towards a subgenre.

I thought of this after I posted, but since I haven't played BESM, it wasn't in mind.

I hear that it has different costs for skills based on genre, so that to me is an example an attempt at genre emulation.

Gurps is good for any of the trappings of genre- the stuff you can do- but everything has the same costs. The "Bang!" skills seem to be a nod towards it.

I guess I was saying that I don't think any game has gone far enough (for me) towards genre emulation. I want a game system that "shapeshifts" without breaking. Fudge doesn't count for me, because you have to build it. you can't just adjust a few parameters and run it.

Quote from: Monster Manuel;326229Thanks.  

Although we may not agree on a definition of RPGs, you guys use mechanics just as much as us. What are some of your cooler ones, what do they do, and why?

A game that uses the d4-d12 spread really cleverly is AGON, by John Harper.  You play Greek heroes doing the bidding of the Gods and slaying monsters and stuff.  Your hero has abilities like Music and Sword, and they are rated from nothing through d4 up to d12.  You track impairment by knocking off die sizes from these, making your guy less effective.  In conflicts you pull in appropriate abilities, add dice for weapons and armor (which can be literal or not - same rules apply for every type of conflict, not just combat) and then divide the ensuing handful of dice between attack and defense.  So Harper took that logical progression and created a tightly integrated system that measures and tracks effectiveness and provides some interesting choices and tactical crunch.  The desire to grub for extra dice, combined with the theme-supporting nature of the abilities, means that players are rewarded for doing Greek hero sorts of things, like challenging enemies to wrestling matches or calming wild beasts by singing.  The game is also explicitly competitive, so players are all vying for the most glory, which turns the characters into a squabbling crew of heroic back-stabbers who only pull together in the face of tremendous threats, which also feels just right.

QUOTE=MM]

Quote from:
Originally Posted by LordVreegI agree with much of what you say here, but you presuppose that people write systems for other people only, or for the mass market.

You're right. A homebrew game for your friends is cool, but I am admittedly interested in the games that will be played by a larger market. What's to stop you from polishing your homebrew and offering it up to more people? [/QUOTE]
You are speaking rhetorically, but that almost became a reality 13 years ago.  Then, it was an ex-fiancee' that blew it up.  Now?  Running a large portion of a company gets in the way, though my players seem to be pushing hard.  Just this AM, I woke up with emails from one PC who created a character generator and another one who is cleaning up the game wiki.  

Quote from: MM

Quote from: LVAs you said at one point, rules ARE the physics of the game. And unless you want to run a game myuch like others, the idiosyncrasies within the setting that are supported by the rules are stronger than those that are just fluff.

For example, lets say you want to have a setting with casters pulling power from different sources of power, and more complicated spells actually use more than one power source. And the fluff behind it may be that there are actually different elemental or planar power sources. Most generic systems jsut won't be able to hack this.

I can see the argument you're making. I do think it's possible to try, however.

The main thrust of that for me was personal preference. I think you're right that most general-use RPGs achieve their goal by being plain, and that specific RPG rulesets tend to be better for a given setting.

I've just always wanted a generic, so-called universal system that was right for me. I think that bias came through.

I'll paraphrase something I said about this once: I don't want to play "System X: Pirates of the Caribbean", I want to play "Pirates of the Caribbean (using System X)". In other words, I want the rules system to reconfigure to fit a setting rather than squeezing a setting into the system.

You speak of a Holy Grail that cannot exist, at least as you want it to be.  
Fudge is one of the best at doing what you want, becasue it is general enough to apply to many settings.  But it is this very generality that makes it unapplicable to a more complex setting.  

It may help you to look at rule systems of a continuum, with "Toolbox' on one end 'and 'Setting Specific' at the other.  Because this is, unfortunately, a reality of rulesets.  

On another site (the CBG) i often tell setting designers to "Make sure the system you choose fits the game you want to play, or else the setting and the gamne will eventually match the ruleset".  This is a maxim for me.

I see that we mainly agree on this, and that you are seemingly trying to find the right balance-point for yourself on the continuum I spoke about above.  What would said system be comprised of?  What Spell System?  What % of the rules would be dedicated to combat?

Jason Morningstar- That's kind of cool.

It sounds like something I might try once or twice.

Quote from: LordVreeg;326377You are speaking rhetorically, but that almost became a reality 13 years ago.  Then, it was an ex-fiancee' that blew it up.  Now?  Running a large portion of a company gets in the way, though my players seem to be pushing hard.  Just this AM, I woke up with emails from one PC who created a character generator and another one who is cleaning up the game wiki.  

I was actually suggesting it. Not posing a hypothetical, per se. I was just saying that a game that works for a homebrew can probably be cleaned up and put out there, including yours. But yes, I am more concerned with the ones that will be put out there to represent the hobby to new people.

QuoteYou speak of a Holy Grail that cannot exist, at least as you want it to be.  
Fudge is one of the best at doing what you want, becasue it is general enough to apply to many settings.  But it is this very generality that makes it unapplicable to a more complex setting.  

I humbly disagree. I think I have my personal holy grail. I just have to put it into a form that someone else can run. I don't expect anyone to believe me until I show them, though, so for now, the point goes to you.

QuoteIt may help you to look at rule systems of a continuum, with "Toolbox' on one end 'and 'Setting Specific' at the other.  Because this is, unfortunately, a reality of rulesets.  

I think of a ruleset sort of like a computer operating system. It's possible for different OSes to run the same program, and have it feel the same. You just have to port it.

QuoteOn another site (the CBG) i often tell setting designers to "Make sure the system you choose fits the game you want to play, or else the setting and the gamne will eventually match the ruleset".  This is a maxim for me.

I agree, unless the ruleset is doing the matching.

QuoteI see that we mainly agree on this, and that you are seemingly trying to find the right balance-point for yourself on the continuum I spoke about above.  What would said system be comprised of?  What Spell System?  What % of the rules would be dedicated to combat?

Spell systems are very setting specific but I have certain ways to model certain types of things. For example, if a world treats spells like skills, then my game will treat them like skills. If it treats them like combat maneuvers (in an abstract sense), then my game will treat them like combat maneuvers, etc.

As for combat, technically, my game is about 95% combat system. What I did was define combat as any type of conflict. A sword fight, a romantic argument, and a demon tempting a priest are modeled the same way, mechanically, but the battlefield, tools and methods of attack for the job differ. I think I was able to avoid what some people hate about the idea of social rules. You never lose your free will until you die, become an NPC, or otherwise get taken out of the fight, like when you go unconscious.

We'll see. I don't expect you to believe me on the merits of a forum post. I should get writing.

Believe me, I'm only looking for my own personal holy grail, not anyone else's. Even I have done what I wanted to do, I know that it won't become the game for everyone. I'm just hoping that enough people will buy it to let me develop all the ideas I have for it.

I just think that if I want something, that someone else might want the same thing. Which is why I gear towards publishing. I'm going to write it anyway, I might as well produce it as well as I can and sell it.

Quote from: Monster Manuel;326392I don't expect you to believe me on the merits of a forum post. I should get writing.

So true!  I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with.  There are certainly other games that aspire to a similar holy grail, maybe falling honorably short of the final goal.  You'll be in good company however it turns out.

Roleplaying games that heavily rely on the participants to provide context and definition seem to make "universality" easier.

Universalis (heh) is one - it has a resource economy for collaborative setting creation that also carries over into play.  You can "buy" facts about the world, for example, or outbid someone to refute them.  It's a pretty extreme example, but the root motivation seems similar to what you are after.

Yeah, I'm going to go get writing. Maybe I'll just do the rules chapters and offer them up for examination. The rules aren't going to be the bulk of the book- suggestions for using the rules effectively are.

Universalis seems too meta for my tastes, but I have always read about it with a bit of interest.

It's a little too meta for my tastes, too.  I've only played once but it felt very abstract and not very gamey, if that makes any sense.  But I think the impulse behind it is similar to yours, coming from a different angle.