PDA

View Full Version : Non-Generic Systems



Chainsaw Hobbit
2011-03-23, 07:14 PM
I'm really tired of "generic" systems that claim to be able to do everything, but end up being able to do just that but at a sub-optimal level. I much prefer specific systems, that focus on doing one thing well instead of doing everything at a passable level. I recently began working on a system built to handle nothing but firearm-based combat, but gave up when real life caught up with me.
Does anyone know of any specific RPG systems that are designed to do one genre, but are not restricted to any particular setting?

Otogi
2011-03-23, 07:19 PM
GUMSHOE is excellent an epic fantasy system.

Nah, I'm just kiddin'. It's a mystery system (maybe horror-mystery).

Britter
2011-03-23, 07:22 PM
inSpectres is designed to do Ghostbusters/Men In Black/Buffy the Vampire slayer style things.

3:16 - Carnage Among the Stars is designed to do starshiptrooper-esque Space Marines stuff

Dread is a generic horror game.

The Glyphstone
2011-03-23, 07:22 PM
CoC for horror, obviously, but I can see it being adapted to a pulp-action ruleset pretty easily - just beef up the PCs, tone down the SAN rules, and give them better guns.

M&M is the quintessential superhero RPG, but with the right sourcebooks, you can do all sorts of things with the engine.

Chainsaw Hobbit
2011-03-23, 07:22 PM
GUMSHOE is excellent an epic fantasy system.

Nah, I'm just kiddin'. It's a mystery system (maybe horror-mystery).

It is pretty balanced, but has no grounds in reality.

dsmiles
2011-03-23, 07:28 PM
Ninjas & Superspies and TMNT (both on the Palladium system) are fun.

I've found that Rolemaster/HARP, while rules-heavy, is very good at gritty sword & sorcery pulp action.

HoL is amazingly funny, and a spoof on all that is roleplaying.

Britter
2011-03-23, 07:29 PM
Prime Time Adventures allows you to play many genres, presuming that they can be modeled by a season of TV shows. It is an interesting system. It essentially models a season of a TV show.

erikun
2011-03-23, 09:29 PM
Faery's Tale Deluxe and Burning Wheel are designed to do one thing, and do a fairly good job at it. I suppose that World of Darkness could work this way, although I'm not sure how well it would work on just modern politics, for example. Shadowrun and Eclipse Phase might work with adjustments, but are fairly tied to their setting.

One Tin Soldier
2011-03-23, 11:23 PM
Yeah, World of Darkness could be described as such. (Each individual game is different, but they each stick to pretty much one type of game.)

Oracle_Hunter
2011-03-23, 11:42 PM
Bliss Stage (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlissStage) does one genre really well. Of course, you may consider the "setting" inherent in the system too restrictive.

Ditto with Mountain Witch, really.

What do you mean by "setting?"

EDIT: Also, I like D&D4 for Heroic Fantasy, but I'm guessing you've already thought of that one :smalltongue:

Yora
2011-03-24, 07:23 AM
Mouse Guard is extremely specific, not only when it comes to the setting, but to the job of the Characters. In Mouse Guard, you're supposed to play a member of the Mouse Guard and all the rules are based on that assumption.

Totally Guy
2011-03-24, 07:35 AM
There's Freemarket which does the genre of "you run a business on a happy space station".

That's a genre I'd never seen before.

Edit: But thinking about it there's no real reason to go outside of the existing setting...

Tyndmyr
2011-03-24, 07:37 AM
7th Sea is magical pirates. It is epic.

Paranoia is, well...paranoia. It's a blast.

Both are great examples of systems that are highly integrated with the setting, and which really help promote a feel of gameplay that goes with it. Like you, I find this preferable to generic systems.

potatocubed
2011-03-24, 07:38 AM
Burning Empires - it's really good for humans vs. brain-eating worms, but only very vaguely applicable for anything else.

Totally Guy
2011-03-24, 07:40 AM
Burning Empires - it's really good for humans vs. brain-eating worms, but only very vaguely applicable for anything else.

You do get to build the the world though so the location can be very different every time.

The Big Dice
2011-03-24, 07:57 AM
There's a moderately popular fantasy system out there called Dungeons and Dragons. I hear it's been around a while and has a few different versions of it out, too.

Samurai Jill
2011-03-24, 07:58 AM
Burning Empires - it's really good for humans vs. brain-eating worms, but only very vaguely applicable for anything else.
Brain-raping worms. There is a distinction.

I'd just point out that BE was closely derived from the Jihad: Burning Sands supplement for Burning Wheel, intended (basically) to support games in the Dune setting. Mouse Guard seems a very specifically-tailored game, but there have been hacks proposed for Star Wars, A Song of Ice and Fire, Tolkien's Middle Earth, Mass Effect, and so on. There's a Firefly adaptation for DitV. The opening chapters of Sorceror give examples of Demons basically being interpreted as everything from fallen angels to hyperintelligent AIs, and the Sorceror and Sword supplement covers Grimm-style fairy tales, post-apocalyptic wastelands, and arabian nights as sample 'settings'.

This systems are often more flexible than they're given credit for, as long as the basic procedural structure is understood.

Totally Guy
2011-03-24, 08:02 AM
There are some Apocalypse World hacks out there too. I'm still getting to grips with the base system.

Goonthegoof
2011-03-24, 09:39 AM
I'm gonna be killed for mentioning this one, but D&D is pretty good for high fantasy games.

BayardSPSR
2011-03-24, 10:15 AM
I'm gonna be killed for mentioning this one, but D&D is pretty good for high fantasy games.

*Gentle stab.*

Except yes, it is, if cut down to apply better to the setting. Otherwise you end up with the random monster mishmash that can make it so funny. Not to mention the potential for god-killing. And wizards. Them.

That said, what ARE the generic systems that bug people so much? Just as a matter of interest.

manyslayer
2011-03-24, 10:37 AM
Extreme Vengeance for blockbuster action movie games. Rules for

Macho Women with Guns (and, specifically, Batwinged Bimbos from Hell - hit to the head do less damage against bimbos) is pretty tied to the genre by the rules.

valadil
2011-03-24, 10:41 AM
That said, what ARE the generic systems that bug people so much? Just as a matter of interest.

GURPS. It does everything passably well, but gets a B or B- at most things. The two instances where I really like GURPS is that it works well in between genres. We've done some pre-industrial type settings that are just a little too advanced to be high fantasy. GURPS filled in that gap nicely. I've also seen it work well for mixed genre games and mixed tech level, although how well it works probably depends on the genres and tech levels. If I wanted to go back in time and equip dinosaurs with lasers, GURPS would be the right system.

As someone trying to write a game system, I have some sympathy for the generic games. Reason being, I came up with a resolution mechanic I'd like to try out. That mechanic has no basis in a setting. As a thought exercise I've considered it in a variety of settings and it seems to work wherever I put it (although I haven't played with the system yet, so who knows if it's even fun). With no attachment to a setting, I've kind of been building mechanics for any tech level.

So long story short, I never set out to write a generic system. But nothing ever dictated what setting to use, so I have yet to specify and write for a given setting.

Vulaas
2011-03-24, 11:00 AM
Dresden Files RPG is a pretty good urban fantasy

obliged_salmon
2011-03-24, 11:13 AM
Another generic is RISUS, when you want your rules light with a capital RULES LIGHT.

BayardSPSR
2011-03-24, 11:17 AM
[It's long.]GURPS. It does everything passably well, but gets a B or B- at most things. The two instances where I really like GURPS is that it works well in between genres. We've done some pre-industrial type settings that are just a little too advanced to be high fantasy. GURPS filled in that gap nicely. I've also seen it work well for mixed genre games and mixed tech level, although how well it works probably depends on the genres and tech levels. If I wanted to go back in time and equip dinosaurs with lasers, GURPS would be the right system.

As someone trying to write a game system, I have some sympathy for the generic games. Reason being, I came up with a resolution mechanic I'd like to try out. That mechanic has no basis in a setting. As a thought exercise I've considered it in a variety of settings and it seems to work wherever I put it (although I haven't played with the system yet, so who knows if it's even fun). With no attachment to a setting, I've kind of been building mechanics for any tech level.

So long story short, I never set out to write a generic system. But nothing ever dictated what setting to use, so I have yet to specify and write for a given setting.

Hm. Seems like what makes the generic systems like GURPS sub-optimal is that they have the intention of being generic... I say this because I can agree with you completely on the last paragraph.

The Big Dice
2011-03-24, 01:05 PM
GURPS. It does everything passably well, but gets a B or B- at most things.
Everything except man to man combat, that's something GURPS does extremely well. And task resolution, too. Not to mention tactical rather than overkill magic.

Sure, GURPS isn't perfect. But as games at the grittier end of the spectrum go, it's head and shoulders above the rest.

That said, my favourite generic system is currently True20. The mutant offspring of GURPS, the SRD and Mutants & Masterminds.

valadil
2011-03-24, 01:20 PM
Everything except man to man combat, that's something GURPS does extremely well. And task resolution, too. Not to mention tactical rather than overkill magic.


What do you mean by task resolution?

The Big Dice
2011-03-24, 02:59 PM
What do you mean by task resolution?

I mean how you resolve a task. In D&D, you roll a D20 and add a modifier to beat a difficulty. In GURPS, you roll 3D6 and attempt to get lower than a skill or stat. There can also be modifiers, such as going for called shots in combat or trying to perform a task under stressful circumstances.

The problem with D&D, and any other single dice based games is linear probability. That is, there's an equal chance of any number coming up on any given roll. This is even more complicated because while you can argue that the more times you roll a dice, the more chance there is of getting a desired result, the truth is that dice have no memory. Odds reset every time you roll.

GURPS has, in my opinion, a better structure. You usually know in advance the roll you need to acheive your desired outcome. And because with multiple dice being rolled, there is a bell curve, it's possible ot play the odds a little more. It's easier to take calculated risks when you know you've got a 75% chance of rolling 12 or less.

erikun
2011-03-24, 05:58 PM
I never quite understood the compaint against flat dice rolls in the flat vs curve debate. I mean, if you have a 75% chance of success, does it matter what randomizing method you use? 3d6 or 1d10 or flip a coin twice, you'll get the same results. I suppose it does matter with character building or increasing challanges - you need to spend quite a lot starting out or taking on tough jobs, while midway through you gain more benefit from bonuses and it becomes increasing difficult to get those last few points.

I guess that makes sense in a way, as you do need to work much harder to see a noticable improvement once you've mastered the fundamentals in most areas in real life. Still, it seems like it becomes rather difficult to quickly judge a change in difficulty. On a flat scale, a +10% either way is just a change in 10%. On a curve, it can typically be anywhere from 2% to 25%.

Kiero
2011-03-24, 06:43 PM
I never quite understood the compaint against flat dice rolls in the flat vs curve debate. I mean, if you have a 75% chance of success, does it matter what randomizing method you use? 3d6 or 1d10 or flip a coin twice, you'll get the same results. I suppose it does matter with character building or increasing challanges - you need to spend quite a lot starting out or taking on tough jobs, while midway through you gain more benefit from bonuses and it becomes increasing difficult to get those last few points.

I guess that makes sense in a way, as you do need to work much harder to see a noticable improvement once you've mastered the fundamentals in most areas in real life. Still, it seems like it becomes rather difficult to quickly judge a change in difficulty. On a flat scale, a +10% either way is just a change in 10%. On a curve, it can typically be anywhere from 2% to 25%.

Because it's never about just one roll. A bell curve groups results around the middle, meaning that there's less of the wild, extreme results. Static modifiers become more important than the randomness of the roll.

DeadManSleeping
2011-03-24, 06:51 PM
Spirit of the Century has absolutely no requirement that you use the setting. It's brilliant for any pulp adventure game set between the Industrial Revolution and the advent of computers, and it can be adapted to other time periods as well, if you feel like putting in a bit of effort to get your low (or no)-magic high-action fun.

erikun
2011-03-24, 08:25 PM
Because it's never about just one roll. A bell curve groups results around the middle, meaning that there's less of the wild, extreme results. Static modifiers become more important than the randomness of the roll.
That won't matter to me much in a given situation. If I have 75% chance on one roll and 25% chance on another, it doesn't much matter if I need to make 6/16 on a d20 or 6/15 on a 3d6. The probability is still the same (roughly).

The only time it would matter is if the bell curve system hands out situational modifiers - although in most systems I've seen, they don't specifically because there is such a differing shift, depending on where the roll happens on the curve. Or perhaps I'm just seeing strange systems.

valadil
2011-03-24, 10:08 PM
I never quite understood the compaint against flat dice rolls in the flat vs curve debate.

I don't mind a flat curve. But I mind success being measured in increments of 5%. 5% is just too high for best/worst possible result. I like 1/216 a lot better for that.

Flat curves on a percentile are cool. 1% increments are fine. The problem is that the math gets more difficult. For some reason the people in my group have an easier time with arithmetic with numbers under twenty than with numbers between 1 and 100 (although we do have one who can't add 3d6 in under 10 seconds). So in the interest of keeping the math simple, I'll take 3d6 over 1d100.

ooknabah
2011-03-24, 11:20 PM
I'm pretty sure FATAL can be used for any scenario you want.

... Mainly because you'll fall asleep before finishing rolling a single character, but hey, nothing is perfect.

Kiero
2011-03-25, 03:40 AM
That won't matter to me much in a given situation. If I have 75% chance on one roll and 25% chance on another, it doesn't much matter if I need to make 6/16 on a d20 or 6/15 on a 3d6. The probability is still the same (roughly).

The only time it would matter is if the bell curve system hands out situational modifiers - although in most systems I've seen, they don't specifically because there is such a differing shift, depending on where the roll happens on the curve. Or perhaps I'm just seeing strange systems.

3d6 doesn't produce as extreme a curve as other methods. 4dF for example has 62% chance of -1, 0 or +1 (from a range of -4 to +4). See probabilities (http://members.dsl-only.net/~bing/frp/fudge/dice.html). That's very different from 1d20's "every result has 5% chance of happening".

The Big Dice
2011-03-25, 06:55 AM
Because it's never about just one roll. A bell curve groups results around the middle, meaning that there's less of the wild, extreme results. Static modifiers become more important than the randomness of the roll.

Static modifiers become more important in linear systems. Because there's an equal change of rolling any number. So the static bonus indes up being more important than the dice roll. Anyone who plays high level D&D will be aware of the phenomenon, even if it's on an intuitive level rather than understanding the maths behind the concept.

Kiero
2011-03-25, 08:06 AM
Static modifiers become more important in linear systems. Because there's an equal change of rolling any number. So the static bonus indes up being more important than the dice roll. Anyone who plays high level D&D will be aware of the phenomenon, even if it's on an intuitive level rather than understanding the maths behind the concept.

A +1 in FATE matters a hell of a lot more than a +1 in D20.

The Big Dice
2011-03-25, 08:39 AM
A +1 in FATE matters a hell of a lot more than a +1 in D20.

But when your attack roll in D20 is +27, the actual roll doesn't really matter much. Same as when your damage roll is 1D12+40 or so.

D20 games do reach a point where if the roll isn't a 1 or a 20, it's fine.

The_Jackal
2011-03-25, 03:39 PM
I never quite understood the compaint against flat dice rolls in the flat vs curve debate. I mean, if you have a 75% chance of success, does it matter what randomizing method you use? 3d6 or 1d10 or flip a coin twice, you'll get the same results. I suppose it does matter with character building or increasing challanges - you need to spend quite a lot starting out or taking on tough jobs, while midway through you gain more benefit from bonuses and it becomes increasing difficult to get those last few points.

I guess that makes sense in a way, as you do need to work much harder to see a noticable improvement once you've mastered the fundamentals in most areas in real life. Still, it seems like it becomes rather difficult to quickly judge a change in difficulty. On a flat scale, a +10% either way is just a change in 10%. On a curve, it can typically be anywhere from 2% to 25%.

Mostly it's a matter of flat die curves making the 'extreme' examples quite commonplace. Take the good old D20 vs a 3d6 roll. If your system defines the lowest possible roll as an automatic failure and the highest possible roll as a critical success, you'll be botching/critting over ten times as often, even though the range of possible outcomes is actually smaller for 3d6. Now you can compensate by going with a larger flat die pool, but that makes the arithmetic for simple game calculations commensurately bigger.


D20 games do reach a point where if the roll isn't a 1 or a 20, it's fine.

IMO, the scaling problems are an artifact of the difficulty system sprouting from a static scale. Armor class is a particularly egregious example. Base attack bonus increases much faster than AC, leaving only raw hit points as the delimiter of durability. Result: Combat is a rather desultory exercise in tree-chopping, with victory going to whomever can swing hardest. Even the hardest blows don't impose any penalties on the target until they reach the magic zero hit point threshold, at which they topple over.

This is also one of the reasons the 'save or lose' spells have such immense power in the system, is that they bypass the slog through the hit point bar, and proceed directly to victory, or at least a state where a victorious outcome is all but certain.

The solution is to make damage a far more precarious affair, where hitting is something that occurs less often, but matters far more. oWoD systems did this quite well, I felt, though they're not without their own faults.

Doc Roc
2011-03-25, 05:00 PM
Because it's never about just one roll. A bell curve groups results around the middle, meaning that there's less of the wild, extreme results. Static modifiers become more important than the randomness of the roll.

Um, what? But d20s specifically do not have Normal Distribution.

Kiero
2011-03-25, 06:28 PM
Um, what? But d20s specifically do not have Normal Distribution.

I know that. I'm talking about mechanics with a bell curve as compared to the linear probability of a single d20 roll.

CarpeGuitarrem
2011-03-25, 09:08 PM
A Dirty World (http://www.gregstolze.com/adirtyworld/) by Greg Stolze does the film noir genre, zeroing in on character tension, both within the character or between characters. The system isn't based in characters' physical attributes, but in their emotional and psychological attributes. It's focused around dramatic tensions and narrative tug and pull, on a character-side level.