"generic systems"

[stepnix]

papercult has had two different threads on generic systems. which is fine. which is cool. both have come to the conclusion of "it's better when a game has specific goals rather than trying to be the One Game For Everything." which is fine! which is cool!

...but. i do not think that so-called generic systems should be reduced to trying to be the One Game For Everything. i think "this game doesn't work for every campaign concept" is always going to be true! which makes it a boring observation to me. It's much more interesting to me to drill down into the specifics of what they do work for and why. In this sense, "generic" can still be a meaningful (if not perfectly accurate) label for gesturing at some setting flexibility, but it's not like, the main appeal. I don't think the genericism is ever the main appeal, really.

idk i have a vague dissatisfaction with Generic Systems Discourse because it takes a foundational bit of design theory (different mechanics produce different outcomes, so should be used intentionally) and then stops. once you start talking about several generic systems at once, they aren't mechanically unified, so you're no longer talking systems! you're just saying "games should have goals" without trying to analyze the goals of the games you're discussing!

i think this means i don't have any beef with any individual generic system i just think people talk about them weirdly

Comments

Well ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

My all-time favorite game engine is Atomic Sock Monkey's PDQ. The core version and the later PDQ Sharp are available free. You can teach or learn the core system in about 5 minutes, make characters in another 5, and start playing. It can adapt to any setting.

You want customization? It has been applied to several genres in games you can buy, some with truly brilliant setting-specific game mechanics.

It's hell and gone better than trying to bash AD&D into something that would actually fit my storyworld and gaming style.