Quote from: ronwisegamgee on April 07, 2023, 03:35:10 PM
There's also the midway point: the highly modular generic system that allows you to plug in optional rules that emulate the genre or setting elements you want your specific game to have. Some systems do this better than other or with less hassle than others (which was my approach with the Quick & Dirty RPG System.)

You can do it with generic systems and you are right, some systems do it better than others.

But sometimes when I am running or playing a game with it's own system tailored to the setting, it feel like it runs better.

Quote from: GhostNinja on April 07, 2023, 04:52:50 PM

Quote from: ronwisegamgee on April 07, 2023, 03:35:10 PM
There's also the midway point: the highly modular generic system that allows you to plug in optional rules that emulate the genre or setting elements you want your specific game to have. Some systems do this better than other or with less hassle than others (which was my approach with the Quick & Dirty RPG System.)

You can do it with generic systems and you are right, some systems do it better than others.

But sometimes when I am running or playing a game with it's own system tailored to the setting, it feels like it runs better.

I agree.  Original Deadlands vs Savage Worlds Deadlands is a good example, IMO.  I played the crap out of the original and while it wasn't perfect, the rules and mechanics gave it this... flavor that was just perfect.  When the SW version came out we tried it and it was such a disappointment.  Something was lost by making it so generic that it didn't feel right.  We ended up going back to the original rules after only a few sessions.

Quote from: rgalex on April 07, 2023, 10:10:47 PM

Quote from: GhostNinja on April 07, 2023, 04:52:50 PM

Quote from: ronwisegamgee on April 07, 2023, 03:35:10 PM
There's also the midway point: the highly modular generic system that allows you to plug in optional rules that emulate the genre or setting elements you want your specific game to have. Some systems do this better than other or with less hassle than others (which was my approach with the Quick & Dirty RPG System.)

You can do it with generic systems and you are right, some systems do it better than others.

But sometimes when I am running or playing a game with it's own system tailored to the setting, it feels like it runs better.

I agree.  Original Deadlands vs Savage Worlds Deadlands is a good example, IMO.  I played the crap out of the original and while it wasn't perfect, the rules and mechanics gave it this... flavor that was just perfect.  When the SW version came out we tried it and it was such a disappointment.  Something was lost by making it so generic that it didn't feel right.  We ended up going back to the original rules after only a few sessions.

I agree with this example 100%.

Quote from: rgalex on April 07, 2023, 10:10:47 PM
I agree.  Original Deadlands vs Savage Worlds Deadlands is a good example, IMO.  I plyed the crap out of the original and while it wasn't perfect, the rules and mechanics gave it this... flavor that was just perfect.  When the SW version came out we tried it and it was such a disappointment.  Something was lost by making it so generic that it didn't feel right.  We ended up going back to the original rules after only a few sessions.

You are right.  It just feels different playing a game with a system the was made for it.

Quote from: rgalex on April 07, 2023, 10:10:47 PM

Quote from: GhostNinja on April 07, 2023, 04:52:50 PM
You can do it with generic systems and you are right, some systems do it better than others.

But sometimes when I am running or playing a game with it's own system tailored to the setting, it feels like it runs better.

I agree.  Original Deadlands vs Savage Worlds Deadlands is a good example, IMO.  I played the crap out of the original and while it wasn't perfect, the rules and mechanics gave it this... flavor that was just perfect.  When the SW version came out we tried it and it was such a disappointment.  Something was lost by making it so generic that it didn't feel right.  We ended up going back to the original rules after only a few sessions.

I'd agree for some games - but it depends on execution. During the 1980s, a bunch of offshoots of the Champions system were tried before unifying them as the HERO System, and I thought the universal system worked better.

And there are a lot of setting-specific games where the system just never worked all that well. For example, I loved the setting for Blue Planet, but the system was lousy.

Quote from: jhkim on April 09, 2023, 03:04:05 AM

Quote from: rgalex on April 07, 2023, 10:10:47 PM

Quote from: GhostNinja on April 07, 2023, 04:52:50 PM
You can do it with generic systems and you are right, some systems do it better than others.

But sometimes when I am running or playing a game with it's own system tailored to the setting, it feels like it runs better.

I agree.  Original Deadlands vs Savage Worlds Deadlands is a good example, IMO.  I played the crap out of the original and while it wasn't perfect, the rules and mechanics gave it this... flavor that was just perfect.  When the SW version came out we tried it and it was such a disappointment.  Something was lost by making it so generic that it didn't feel right.  We ended up going back to the original rules after only a few sessions.

I'd agree for some games - but it depends on execution. During the 1980s, a bunch of offshoots of the Champions system were tried before unifying them as the HERO System, and I thought the universal system worked better.

And there are a lot of setting-specific games where the system just never worked all that well. For example, I loved the setting for Blue Planet, but the system was lousy.

Greetings!

I remember BLUE PLANET! I recall at the time thinking it seemed like a pretty cool book, lots of creativity and awesome ideas--but looking at the actual system, it seemed like a mess, so I passed on buying it. I probably spent three hours sitting in my game store, paging through the Blue Planet book. I remember it was huge, too, and had some pretty cool artwork and visual stuff.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: jhkim on April 09, 2023, 03:04:05 AM

I'd agree for some games - but it depends on execution. During the 1980s, a bunch of offshoots of the Champions system were tried before unifying them as the HERO System, and I thought the universal system worked better.

And there are a lot of setting-specific games where the system just never worked all that well. For example, I loved the setting for Blue Planet, but the system was lousy.

Very much so, though I'd say that some of the generic versions of the specific Hero System games lost flavor in the translation.  Though you could get it back if you knew about it, and carefully pruned the generic system back to fit.  Which is of course one of the issues with a generic system.  They aren't really game systems. They are game tool kits for making a system.  You could argue that almost any game system is really that to some degree, and I don't know that I'd disagree.  But it is a degree.

When you get on the broken side of the fence, generic nearly always wins.  It is roughly:  Good specific > Good generic > Bad generic > Bad specific.  Whether a mediocre game is better off in the specific or generic category is going to depend a lot on where it is good or bad and just how bad it is.  A salvageable specific game with notable flaws is often better once its been salvaged. 

I think sometimes that what makes a generic system more appealing is that simply it has had a wider range of testing.

Really good discussion (and thanks Steven for the reply).

The idea of a minimum level of crunch and typical campaign sustainability is also interesting. Over the years I have asked for anecdotes of long campaign play for some of the popular true rules-lite games. Into the Odd, Maze Rats, RISUS, Lasers and Feelings, etc. are examples. I almost always get crickets.

Not as much today, but a couple years ago you'd see these recommended on Reddit and other forums, yet reports of sustained play are almost nonexistent. I remember one person reporting a RISUS campaign that had lasted over a year, using just the core/companion rules. No campaign report unfortunately. But I can't say I've seen one for any rules-lite game.

Quote from: SHARK on April 09, 2023, 04:34:41 AM
Greetings!

I remember BLUE PLANET! I recall at the time thinking it seemed like a pretty cool book, lots of creativity and awesome ideas--but looking at the actual system, it seemed like a mess, so I passed on buying it. I probably spent three hours sitting in my game store, paging through the Blue Planet book. I remember it was huge, too, and had some pretty cool artwork and visual stuff.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Hi Shark,

Have to say, if the system sucks from the beginning then that excludes it it from what I was saying.  Sometimes settings are great and the system sucks. 

Then, a generic system would be the way to go.

your rules are made to reflect your world and your world is made to reflect your rules.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=581&v=HMatdeHMYC4

Quote from: Cathal on April 11, 2023, 12:42:54 PM
your rules are made to reflect your world and your world is made to reflect your rules.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=581&v=HMatdeHMYC4

Watching this video.  Interesting.  Thanks for pointing it out.

I've always felt TSR should have had a Campaign rules update for each setting to ensure the game worlds felt different (which classes are allowed, which beasts are allowed, and how magic might be different in that world). Dark Sun sort of did this and only Dark Sun seems to have left any meaningful impression because the differences were so pronounced.

Then WotC went generic Forgotten Realms, bleck.

Yes? This should be obvious fact. Ludonarrative harmony and ludonarrative dissonance apply to all games with narratives on top of their gameplay.

I've have seen way too many games with profound ludonarrative dissonance that fans just brush aside criticism of because they're indoctrinated to pretend it isn't a problem or don't even play with the actual rules and just fiat everything. I absolutely hate that. If you're going to spend your precious time writing all these rules, then they should actually be important. If you're just going to fiat everything, why are you buying these books rather than going to an RP chat? Actually, are you even buying the books or just reading fluff snippets on a wiki somewhere?

I've become extremely disillusioned with a number of tabletop communities due to this. I find myself increasingly preferring video games, despite their inherent limitations, because it seems more players and devs care about the problems of ludonarrative dissonance in that sphere.

Quote from: Ruprecht on April 23, 2023, 08:12:52 PM
I've always felt TSR should have had a Campaign rules update for each setting to ensure the game worlds felt different (which classes are allowed, which beasts are allowed, and how magic might be different in that world). Dark Sun sort of did this and only Dark Sun seems to have left any meaningful impression because the differences were so pronounced.

Oh yeah!

I remember that sometimes 3pp campaign settings would include lists of fluff bits where they explained the fluff and role of core classes and manual monsters in the setting. I don't think that happens anymore, does it?

Quote from: Ruprecht on April 23, 2023, 08:12:52 PM
I've always felt TSR should have had a Campaign rules update for each setting to ensure the game worlds felt different (which classes are allowed, which beasts are allowed, and how magic might be different in that world). Dark Sun sort of did this and only Dark Sun seems to have left any meaningful impression because the differences were so pronounced.

Then WotC went generic Forgotten Realms, bleck.

z

Yeah, it's really a pity that they abandoned the idea of different campaign settings having their own rules. I know Dark Sun did it, and I believe a few other 2nd edition-era settings did as well. From what I've heard, it's the opposite now, where WOTC mandates that all D&D settings have to not only have to have the same rules, but have to include all of the published races and classes in their lore as well. It just leads to every setting being the same. That's something Pathfinder could have brought back to differentiate themselves, but they chose not to.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 07, 2023, 09:43:08 AMThat old crack about, "You can use Hero System for any game, as long as you don't mind it playing like Hero" is true.  It's also true of GURPS.  I bet its true of Savage Worlds.  What people miss in that observation is that this isn't necessarily a plus or minus.  If you like that feel enough, it's a huge plus! 

As a person who loves generic systems I can say this is 100% correct. While generic systems might be designed to cover different genres of games they still have an underlying approach they apply to all those genres. I played GURPS for over 30 years and it aims for verisimilitude, which is great unless you want 'larger than life' on a regular basis. Savage Worlds is now my system-of-choice since it aims for 'pulp action' as its default and pretty much all the games I want to run or play have a pulp sensibility at their core.