1KM1KT Free RPG Community

Something that's been pinging off my radar for a little bit now is GM's cherrypicking games for ideas they like and just applying them to the game they're in. It makes it easier for them to do something new with a system they already like.

Philosophically I'm fine with that concept. Practically though, I find it a bit frustrating. I like that someone would pick up an idea and run with it. I dislike that most game creators (+me) want to make their own system. If we all just settled down and wrote for an established universal system (not make a new one) then it would make adoption of our stories easier since this is what a good number of GMs out there are going to do anyway.

Now I'm not saying "okay everyone who's with me". Because I'm not sure I'm even with myself on this. It's more just the thought that pops into my head when I hear a GM say "oh I like that, I'm gonna put that in my campaign". When I'm talking Sci-fi and he's running Pathfinder.

Is there another solution? Is there another way to take this? I'm sure the monkeys will set me straight.

Part of the story first approach is the acceptance that its easier to borrow story elements over mechanics. If you can't get people to take the game as is, you can at least be proud that it was a source of inspiration.

Another reason is that once we have the setting, we can make rules that specifically support it well, so people are more likely to accept the holistic product than simply take a few parts.

Sociologist Marshal McLuhan pointed out that "the medium is the message". Rules establish themes in an RPG. Paranoia would be different without multiple lives, as would Star Wars without darkside corruption, or Call of Cthlulu without sanity.

The Platonic ideal universal system is nigh impossible because of the number of permutations needed. You need rules for all situations, a discussion of why a rule supports a certain concept, and how each should be worked in together.

For example - called shot rules. In a Roy Rodger's style cowboy movie RPG aimed at children, the ability to aim at a person's head and reduce it to a fine red mist should not be included at all. Yet conversely, shooting a gun our of the target's hand should be if anything be easier for aiming at the chest, since the focus is on bloodless violence and taking them in alive. Other generes might demand the presence of called shot rules with gory effects (war films?) while others would do best without them entirely (fast paced cartoon style).

Borrowing parts of the setting is one thing, but trying to build the game from the ground up, even with a box of rules to work from, is a bit of an imposition of the already busy GM.

Now that I have the random musings out of the way, what can we do with this? We can begin by having discussions like this one. As you may recall, one of the big complaints about "RPG Theory" is that its a bunch of observations, without much commentary. GNS boils down to "different people want different things" but fails to expand on how you would write a simulation game differently from a narrative one. It is our job on this forum to fill in things like that and why different rules fit only certain genres.

I'm on board with that. So then some basic concepts on what kinds of rules elicit certain atmospheres. If you knew how broad categories of rules affected play, you could more easily design a game to feel the way you wanted. On the other hand, you may also be able to better explain to a GM why the medium is the message and how the custom rules give you the unique feel to a game.

But to back up a little, I wasn't necessarily saying develop no rules. Just enough for the setting to work in the established system. For example, specific rules for spaceships in Risus (although I think they're working on that).