Universal systems: Differences and Weaknesses

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
David Johansen said:
hmmm...Is White Wolf's house system a universal rpg? Trinity and Adventure and historical WoD push it that way.
Click to expand...
Interesting question. I think to be a universal system, you need to have a book designed to cover a wide range of settings, not just a bunch of games using the same system that cover multiple settings. I suppose nWoD is a little closer in having a single core book for the line, but even that is still focused on modern supernatural games.
 
Ossian said:
Mythras - play in Conan’s world
Savage Worlds - play as Conan in Conan’s world
Click to expand...
My Viking in our MRQ2 campaign* sure acted a lot like Conan, and he didn't even have too high stats. I'm not sure Savage Worlds actually has an advantage in this area.


*Mythras' predecessor, before it was renamed Mythras.
 
Ossian said:
Mythras - play in Conan’s world
Savage Worlds - play as Conan in Conan’s world
Click to expand...

I’d phrase it differently.

Mythras: Conan is a remarkable specimen of humanity because he bests armies of ordinary foes and slays demons of the Outer Dark.

Savage Worlds (RAW, assuming a steady flow of bennies): Conan bests armies of ordinary foes and slays demons of the Outer Dark because he is a remarkable specimen of humanity (i.e. a Wild Card).
 
Ossian said:
Ok, I’ll try again :grin:
Mythras - REH Conan
Savage Worlds - Marvel Conan
Click to expand...
Oh, OK then, I'm not even sure what Marvel's Conan is like...:grin:
Really, I think the book imitators were bad enough. So I've restricted myself to REH's Conan quite consciously and deliberately. It probably helped that Marvel's Conan wasn't readily available in my country when I was young, and then I took the above decision after meeting the "looks nothing like Conan" fantasy novels from other authors.

The Butcher said:
I’d phrase it differently.

Mythras: Conan is a remarkable specimen of humanity because he bests armies of ordinary foes and slays demons of the Outer Dark.

Savage Worlds (RAW, assuming a steady flow of bennies): Conan bests armies of ordinary foes and slays demons of the Outer Dark because he is a remarkable specimen of humanity (i.e. a Wild Card).
Click to expand...

...I don't think Conan bests armies, unless he leading his own army counts:thumbsup:. And the same applies to Mythras, too.

But if your Savage Worlds PCs are doing that, I'd really like to know which setting rules you've been using:tongue:!
 
A thought about universal systems - if any system could do all things well, it would look pretty much the same as every other universal system that did all things well...

There will always be decisions about how combat looks, how different abilities/powers balance out, what are the building blocks for magic, etc.

As a result, each universal system will have some things it does really well, some things it does ok, and some things it doesn't do so well.

Those who swear by a single universal system probably like the range of things it does well. And then there's the folks who really don't use the system, the folks who brag about whole game sessions passing without rolling a single die. Hint, those folks aren't playing the game, they are engaging in some kind of cooperative story telling. But those folks will claim their favorite universal system can do everything perfectly. And if you press them, they don't roll dice because they don't want characters killed in combat or some such...

I think universal systems do have a place. They can be a good place to start from if there isn't a game out there that does the setting you want but the universal system supports the feel you're looking for. But I feel like the best games are ones where the universal system has been tweaked to fit the setting/theme/feel desired.
 
The Butcher said:
Now there’s an interesting thought! Care to elaborate?
Click to expand...

When I think of Savage Worlds, I picture something cartoony, or comic book like. When I picture Mythras I picture the almost impressionist art of the books which to me gives it the feel of the long lost mythical Hyborian Age REH portrayed.

Also, Marvel Conan is like the original stories plus all the pastiche stories.
 
Anyone ever taken a particular adventure, run it in one universal/generic system, and later taken the same adventure and run it in a different universal/generic system? I always thought that would be an interesting exercise to highlight how different systems handle things.
 
E-Rocker said:
Anyone ever taken a particular adventure, run it in one universal/generic system, and later taken the same adventure and run it in a different universal/generic system? I always thought that would be an interesting exercise to highlight how different systems handle things.
Click to expand...

Uh sorta, I've run the same adventure using Changeling the Dreaming, Call of Cthulhu, Nemesis, and Marvel Superheroes, for different groups. None of those are promoted as "universal systems" though.
 
Rogerdee said:
Marvel Conan fought a depowered Thor, and did not lose IIRC.
Click to expand...
I guess it depends on whether it's just "powers" or "Asgardian traits". If you strip the base line bullet proof and super strong Asgardian template I think Conan could probably pull it off. Thor always brags about his expertise and experience but really he slacks off training.
 
Two systems not yet mentioned I believe are Risus and Follow.

Risus is derived from Ghostbusters and is quite minimalist and probably due to its origins tends to have a sense of humour but can be used for any number of more 'serious' settings as is shown here with hacks for almost everything including WFRP, Rifts and Shadowrun!

Follow, by the talented designer behind Microscope Ben Robbins, is kind of a storygame Gurps if you can imagine that. I describe it in more detail here.

Both of these games are rather minimalist so those who want more meat or crunch in their ruleset may find them too thin or 'handwavey' for long-term play although I think they'd be great for the right group. Robbins even discusses how to adapt Follow for one-shots or longer-term play..
 
Heh, I have a coffee mug with the Risus rules on them.

In the early aughts there was a huge explosion in "micro-systems" published online - Risus, The Window, Fable, The Pool, - hundreds of them.

I think, though, that there's a good reason that they never really took off. They're all fine, great, little systems. I've run Risus as recent as two years ago, just before Covid hit. But as much as they do everything, they also kinda do nothing.
 
E-Rocker said:
Anyone ever taken a particular adventure, run it in one universal/generic system, and later taken the same adventure and run it in a different universal/generic system? I always thought that would be an interesting exercise to highlight how different systems handle things.
Click to expand...
I ran old school D&D and OSR adventures in Savage Worlds that were reskinned for the Hyborian Age. While I enjoyed the results immensely they played out differently if that makes any sense.

Edit: Never mind I see what you were asking LOL
 
Ultra light games usually wind up as a palate cleanser - good for a one shot between campaigns or when not everyone shows up. I like them but it's hard to make an extended game out of them and if you play the same system again you feel its sameness.

I find them good for light or humorous themes as there's more room to screw around if you have less rules to remember. But again, I find it hard to keep humorous games going as it seems as the humor of the situation gets used up.

Maybe that's just me though. Advanced Fighting Fantasy is super light but some groups take it for a long run.
 
E-Rocker said:
Anyone ever taken a particular adventure, run it in one universal/generic system, and later taken the same adventure and run it in a different universal/generic system? I always thought that would be an interesting exercise to highlight how different systems handle things.
Click to expand...
I've run Caverns of Thracia under at least 3 systems. AD&D/OD&D hybrid, a d100 system similar to BRP, and a 2D10 (added together) similar to some mutated form of TFT/BRP. Also the last two systems used spell point based spell casting. In all cases the creatures and spells in the later two systems were chosen/converted to approximate the relative power they had in AD&D.

It ran the most smoothly under the 2D10 system, I believe primarily because (1) the non-linear aspect of the distribution both kept variation down but also allowed some stacked modifiers (through really good tactics etc.) to allow for heroic stuff); and (2) could quickly resolve the attacks of 10 monsters at a time, just throwing 10 pairs of differently colored d10s....one battle in particular with many goblins, bugbears, lizardmen, etc. (thinking like 36 all told) vs 6 PC + 1NPC.

I've also run TSR's B1, G1 and G2 under multiple systems, and Dark Tower under multiple systems.

I'm looking forward to running these under a dice pool count success type system, once get back to in-person gaming.
 
Last edited:
AsenRG said:
I love generic games. The first one I ran was GURPS and for quite a bit of time, I didn't really understand what's the point of other systems...
This changed. But to this day, I still treat most systems as generic. Like, we want to play supers using Warhammer? I'm sure it should be possible!
Granted, the days I try to stick to hacking systemsthat start somewhere close, in order to avoid the required hacking:shade:.


Not surprising at all. My reaction to Vampire inthe 2000s was "what, we play the monsters we've been killing in other games? Where's the fun in being an adventurer's canon fodder?"
My friend: " But the chicks dig it".
Me: *Blink* "OK, let's give it a try!"
Click to expand...

I always heard this but never saw it first hand, but I had a long term girlfriend for most of the 90s, and then met my wife near the end of the 90s. Vampire came out too late for "but chicks" to be a major draw for me. If they had brought it out in the 80s it would have been of some use to me.

There is something to be said for Vampires though, I've learned the 1992 Dracula film is a great date movie... :heart:


Ossian said:
Mythras - play in Conan’s world
Savage Worlds - play as Conan in Conan’s world
Click to expand...

Negative, you can only play Conan TM with the Conan RPG (TSR), GURPS Conan, Conan The RPG (Mongoose) or Modiphious's 2d20 Conan and for legal reasons all other efforts to mimic Conan are pale imitations. :grin:
 
E-Rocker said:
Anyone ever taken a particular adventure, run it in one universal/generic system, and later taken the same adventure and run it in a different universal/generic system? I always thought that would be an interesting exercise to highlight how different systems handle things.
Click to expand...

Not 2 universal systems but I have been through the same module using D&D and Fantasy HERO (Village of Homlet), and Aftermath and Danger International (Operation Morphious). Not the same module, but we did run through some Call of Cthulhu modules using Justice Inc. Yeah things worked out differently since HERO PCs tend to be "Bigger Damn Heroes" than the default games in all three examples.
 
E-Rocker said:
Anyone ever taken a particular adventure, run it in one universal/generic system, and later taken the same adventure and run it in a different universal/generic system? I always thought that would be an interesting exercise to highlight how different systems handle things.
Click to expand...
The problem is, when running the same module, you'd need to change the players as well. And that introduces another variable.
I mean, same (investigative) module by the same GM, same system: A group of 4 semi random players failed to resolve it during the 5 hours allotted on the mini-con. Then they declared it was too hard.
Me, volunteering to tackle the same module solo, specifically making a PC that isn't suited to investigations: Module resolved in a bit less than 70 minutes.
Me: "Wait...but when are we going to get to the hard part that they didn't overcome? You didn't go easy on me, right? You know how much I hate easy mode even in PC games..."
GM, looking a bit surprised: "That was the (previous obstacle), the one that you breezed past!"
Me, also dumbfounded: "That was an obstacle? I thought it's just a checkpoint whether you've done the homework."
Her: "Yes, that's what I expected it to be, too! And the worst part is one of them had the same idea as you, but he's shy and the gals just shouted him down and pronounced it a dumb idea. And well, I tried to rein them in politely, but they didn't appear to even hear me, that's how engulfed they were in their discussion".

Now, I had at the time more time playing and running RPGs than the other four players and the GM combined...:devil:
But the point is, it's a random element.

You might mitigate that somewhat if you were to use the same module with both systems on multiple groups, and then look for the "average experience", but it's still another variable that you have to account for.
 
E-Rocker said:
Anyone ever taken a particular adventure, run it in one universal/generic system, and later taken the same adventure and run it in a different universal/generic system? I always thought that would be an interesting exercise to highlight how different systems handle things.
Click to expand...
Yes multiple times, but in particular (and accessible) is my Scourge of the Demon Wolf which was first run under GURPS. Then D&D 3.X, Swords & Wizardry, S&W + my MW Supplement, 5e, Adventures in Middle Earth, and Harnmaster. I also have a TFT version that I haven't ran. I had another adventure that I ran using multiple system including Fate and later Fudge.

My assessment? Well first off hearing what happened and why it happen varied in the same range as the dozen or so sessions I ran using my MW Supplement. However the details of how it played differed. For example with Swords & Wizardry alone, it was the six character stats that guided me to how to adjudicate things outside of combat and spellcasting. When I added my MW supplement, it was 20 abilities (skills) that came into play. GURPS with its greatly expanded skill lists with having a narrow focus and so on. GURPS Combat took a lot longer to resolves. AiME 5th edition and 3.X were in the middle. With S&W or my MW Supplement the fastest.

Of all the systems Fate was the most different because of the Fate economy. One player said using it felt like cheating compared to what he experienced from my other adventures.

But the range played out the same regardless of system (even Fate) because I focused my adjudication on handling specific things that the players do as their characters. Which includes things like roleplay first then roll. Roleplaying meaning what one does as a character and how one interacts with a NPCs. What I primarily look for is the plan or intent*. If the players does a good acting job or creates a great solution then I reward that as well.

Another reason is that when there are options like in GURPS or Fate. I pick the ones that fit the setting of the Scourge of the Demon Wolf. A fantasy vaguely medieval setting somewhat grounded in how western Europe was in the Middle Ages. The same with system. I wouldn't use Toon without a lot of work that in the end wouldn't be worth it.

With the system suitable for the setting, the primary mechanic, that is shared by all the system I used, become the players describing how their character interact with the setting and me describing the result. If the result uncertain that when the characteristics of the system are most edivent.

Funny this should be brought up because I had a player just commented this week about my refereeing style and my best friend (we share similar views) especially when it comes to skills. He said that regardless of system we both handle skill in the same way with a similar expected range of outcomes.

If folks wonder why I am so stubborn about my definition or wonder why I say the things I do about the relationship between system and setting, it is because it what I been doing for 40 years. And it resulted from handling the consequences of letting players "trash" one's setting and making it a fun challenge.

*Think of a player who has a bad stutter trying to be a diplomat. I still have the player describe or act out much as they are comfortable with but I tell them I am looking for what your plan or main point is. Not how well you the players present yourself. If what you say fits the NPC's goals or motivation, then you succeed and the roll is to see what kind of success your character gains. If it doesn't fit then the NPC will never accept what you are saying then the roll is how badly you fail. If it is between we use the reaction chart and see what pops up.

Remember folks you get the PDF of Scourge for Free or the print copy at cost until the 21st for folks here at the Pub

Scourge of the Demon Wolf PDF
Scourge of the Demon Print ($5.60)
 
AsenRG said:
The problem is, when running the same module, you'd need to change the players as well. And that introduces another variable.
...
Click to expand...

Granted, but I've run (for example) Caverns of Thracia under at least 3 different groups with AD&D/OD&D, 2 with the d100 systems, and 2 with the 2d10 system where on one we started off with the d100 system and switched mid-module to 2D10.

I do tend to have some variable control as the players usually include at least 2 old-hands (i.e. they started with OD&D circa 1975-1977) and one new to RPGs or never played D&D in any iteration. In all cases we have high trust, desire to immerse in genre, no munchkins, no CN disruptors.
 
GURPS: Good for realistic-to-semi-realistic games, where high levels of detail are desired.
Bad for high-powered games. 3e didn't do a great job with modern+ armor/weapons, as you tended to get either "unharmed" or "dead" most of the time due to the scale and the reliance on d6s.

Savage Worlds: Good for when GURPS seems like a good idea, but you don't want that much fiddliness.

Fate: Good for "cinematic" games (note that movies can be realistic).
Bad for games where you want more of a "simulation", or well-detailed lists of specific abilities/equipment.
 
robertsconley said:
....
But the range played out the same regardless of system (even Fate) because I focused my adjudication on handling specific things that the players do as their characters. Which includes things like roleplay first then roll. Roleplaying meaning what one does as a character and how one interacts with a NPCs. What I primarily look for is the plan or intent*. If the players does a good acting job or creates a great solution then I reward that as well.

Another reason is that when there are options like in GURPS or Fate. I pick the ones that fit the setting of the Scourge of the Demon Wolf. A fantasy vaguely medieval setting somewhat grounded in how western Europe was in the Middle Ages. The same with system. I wouldn't use Toon without a lot of work that in the end wouldn't be worth it.

With the system suitable for the setting, the primary mechanic, that is shared by all the system I used, become the players describing how their character interact with the setting and me describing the result. If the result uncertain that when the characteristics of the system are most edivent.
...
Click to expand...
Sounds like the way I run my games and similar experience, though never used GURPS or Fate specifically. The system was not determinative, but it could make things easier or get in the way (i.e. have to be ignored in parts or tweaked, or make things slow).
 
I can't think of any modules I've run under multiple systems. But if I did, they would likely come out very different. Usually when I'm using a module for a different system I'm either just taking the map, or the map with some thoughts about the occupants. Also, the different systems I have run have different tolerances for extent of a "dungeon." RuneQuest and Cold Iron aren't going to do well with a multi-level dungeon with lots of rooms, Cold Iron less so than RQ. Different combat systems also tend to change the dynamic of numbers of opponents. In Pre-3.0 D&D powerful solitary monsters tend to work OK. In other systems a solitary monster is dead meat if it can't guarantee positioning that prevents more than one or two attackers. Magic also changes things. In my AD&D days, the PCs often had wands of fireballs and were happy to fire them off to clear out a room with lots of less powerful monsters. In RQ or Cold Iron, a room with 30 orcs/trollkin could be deadly...

So with that, my assumption is that playing the same module under multiple systems would result in very different play.
 
When I first decided to run an RPG campaign, I quickly determined that I wanted to use a universal/generic system, because A) I've always liked the idea of such systems and B) none of the games with established settings have a setting that sings to me.

For a little while, I looked at a bunch of super-simple, one-page or at-most-a-few-page RPGs. I still like the idea of them, and would like to do a bunch of one shots to try a bunch of them, but I felt like there wasn't really enough game there for a long term campaign. I could be wrong, but that's how I felt.

The worst offender was SLUG. The first time I read SLUG, I thought it was awesome. The second time I read it, I realized the rules essentially amounted to "make up your own rules," and that sounded like a lot of work.

So I looked seriously at GURPS, Fate Accelerated Edition, and Savage Worlds. GURPS was just too... much, Fate was a little less traditional than what I wanted (at least that's how it seemed from the rulebook; I've heard people argue that Fate is actually a very traditional RPG), and Savage Worlds, while it's slightly crunchier than I really wanted, the rulebook was ten bucks, it was relatively short, and it seemed geared for the high-adventure style I had in mind. So I picked it up and haven't looked back.
 
Did they ever do an Explorer's Edition for the new edition of Savage Worlds? That little rulebook was a great point of entry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top