Whar do Generic RP systems excell at. How do you use them comapred to thematic/setting/narrative based systems...

Whar do Generic RP systems excell at. How do you use them comapred to thematic/setting/narrative based systems. Not saying one is better than the other but in what scenarios is using one over the other appropriate?

>I learn GURPS
>GURPS has rules capable of running anything from firefly to warhammer vermintide, to cyberpunk, to inyuyasha, to dragonball Z, to WW4, to alt history X, to DnD, to whatever, because it has all encompasing balanced rules that can be plugged in at the drop of a hat, or removed at a whim without effecting the grand scale of play
>why would I use any other system at this point?

Generic RP systems have 3 main purposes in my mind
1- you've come up with a setting of your own that doesn't fit into other stuff.

2- your group likes playing a lot of different games and genres, but doesn't want to learn 500 different systems. If your group has actual lives with limited free time and aren't a bunch of neet fa/tg/uys, this advantage is not to be underestimated.

3- superheroes or any other setting where the party is a diverse bunch with weird powers but you want some semblance of balance

>learn mediocre system
>it can do anything, it just can't do anything well
>it's a bland, awkward system that I can't convince anyone to play with me
>guess I should advertise it online

Who is the cute girl OP?

The strong point of generic systems is that they are easily modifiable and good to homebrew. At least wjen the system is done well.
Considering how irredeemably shitty most specialized systems are, learning a generic one you like and modifying it for your needs is a good way to get the game you actually want.

#2 is something that all those little indie systems are great at.
Generally you can learn them well enough to play in just a 5-10 minute skim, and each one is tailored exactly to whatever thing it does, so you can just cycle through them one after another, with less effort than sorting through a giant pile of GURPS splatbooks and announcing which particular rules modules from the splats will be in play for this week's game, and just hoping GURPS does a passable job at whatever weird game idea you've got.

IMO, generic systems are a leftover from the days when RPGs were massive tomes that took a big up-front investment to learn how to play, where the expectation was that you'd pick one system and play it for years on end. (An idea that only benefits D&D.)

Some settings don't have any good systems (Pokemon RPGs, for example, tend to be terrible.)

As mentioned, they're also good for very diverse parties. It helps prevent the angel summoner and BMX bandit issue.

The point isn't to excel at anything, it's to have a system you can keep in your metaphorical back pocket for whenever you have an idea for a campaign that either doesn't fit neatly into any existing system or where you don't like any of the existing options that could run it.

Still better than everyone who hacks Pathfinder to play their political intrigue games.

>easily modifiable / brewable
> simple (hopefully)
> can switch settings / campaigns in same system
> usually just as good as if not better than a dedicated system (no joke)

The only thing I'll say against generic systems is that they do get boring after years of playing the same one; using the same rules through a half-dozen campaigns makes them feel samier than they should.

Most of those are really bad though. In fact, I've never seen one that isn't either a supid-fun party game or just plain bad, not to mention most of them are barely games at all and by design not playable for more than one session.

>Get told you're eating garbage
>"Well at least I'm not eating shit!"
Seriously, why do so many GURPSfags struggle to defend their system without comparing it to 3.PF? I can't be the only one who's noticed this, right?

Sadly, not really, because at the very least the core d20 mechanic is simple and transparent.

GURPS starts out with scrunched math that forces you to stick to a narrow range, leaving anything you do with it feeling bland while still somehow feeling overcomplex.

>generic role play systems
1.) can use it to implement every scenario
2.) mechanics are not meant to do a specific thing but rather to generalize
3.) not restricted by the world as you can make your own with little difficulty
4.) can make your own lure as you see fit
>setting based role play
1.) designed to depict a spisific set of circumstances relating to the genre
- lord of the rings doesn't have rules for radiation or space craft and there implementation would be difficult if not impossible
2.) in general they have more rules that are more specific to the possible situations that may arise and most likely will have to be resolved in a similar way to the original source
3.) the lure is already set in stone
- can be problematic if sources conflict
- game is designed to be more like fan fiction than a generic game in the setting though not always

Eh, I don't think it really has anything to do with GURPS, because I've seen it happen with plenty of other systems.
It's just 3.PF has been the 600 pound gorilla in the room for so many years, people reflexively reach for that as a contrast.

Letting you play games set in the current Flavor of the Month primarily.

> Seriously, why do so many GURPSfags struggle to defend their system without comparing it to 3.PF?

It's the same thing with Dungeon World fags. Their entire argument for playing the game boils down to "it's not D&D 3.5". Guess it's the same with GURPS.

I don't know who you're talking to, but I like Dungeon World because I prefer a low prep, narrative GM style, and my players love fantasy dungeon crawling. I've tried plenty of other systems for that, but none of them let me do that kind of thing so readily as Dungeon World.

Gurps is fun for wacky setting for when you want to play a tank commander in D&D, but I'd rather go for specialized systems for specialized settings when needed.

>I'm a lazy GM who wants the players to do the work for me: the post.

This response was crafted with all the effort your post deserves.

I tried to make a pokemon rpg home brew. I had to involve calculus.

>it can do anything, it just can't do anything well
cute meme
what are you talking about?

Try world of dungeons some time. Even lighter, less prep, and more character options. Also way more hackable. There's an advanced version and warhammer version as well.

Tried it, the magic system is freeform crap that bogged us down in debating how it worked and what it could do and whether the mage could get away with this or that.
Also I don't like the reintroduction of HP bloat, or the way the skill system just changes success/partial succes/failure into success/partial success/more partialer success. Differentiating the latter two is a pain in the ass.

Plus I'm already good at hacking the shit of DW, so "more hackable" isn't an issue. (I gotta say DW is already among the most easily hackable systems I've ever used)

One thing you can do is try pdf related to get an idea of a generalized game with a theme. Then you'll start to see how worldbuilding is really quite tacked-on with most thematic system (and that's not bad, just not fit for all uses). Systems can be generic and thematic.

Also I highly suggest not opening this in a browser PDF viewer since it uses special effects on some text.

>hackable

God damn this shitty reddit phrasing for homebrew. You aren't "hacking" anything you wannabe Anonymous fuck. You're changing some rules to better fit your needs. It's called homebrewing, that's what it's been called for years. Jsut because you tack on some hipster buzzword doesn't make your shitty system any different from those that already exist.

Wow, you are really triggered by that. I only used it because the other guy used it first, fag. And because "easily homebrewed for" is clunky.

Easily hacked can work anyway. Hacking means writing instructions (referring to code) by splitting existing ones and inserting your own. Which is exactly what home-brewing is on a basic level, even if the specifics are different. As the code kind myself, I accept this.