Thread by @Shinto_Nephilim

#ttrpg "Too Generic"
There's some RPGs out there that have gone minimalist, and that works for them. Then there's others that go that route, and we're wondering what they're thinking.

Pick a genre or movie where 'getting better' - either linearly or laterally, is a thing.

For example, Star Wars. Luke's journey into learning how to use the Force. Any number of anime where the main character develops and grows. Superhero comics where the character has their origin and grows. You get the idea.

Now, imagine an RPG which completely throws that out to give you the most basic traits to cover the character's abilities.

For example, "The Force". If you're playing a Jedi, you get 'The Force'. Any challenge the GM throws at you, you can solve with 'The Force'.

You declare you're using 'The Force' and make a single die roll. Oh, you succeed? Obviously you used The Force to do so! How?

And it's open ended. Did you want to use TK? Sure. Mind Trick? Okay. Precognition? Alright. Force Lightning? Yep.

Oh, is your character a padawan? Doesn't matter. The game doesn't care. You have 'The Force', and that's all that matters, mechanically.

In every SW RPG we've ever played or run, there was a sense of accomplishment in progression. You finally get that new Force Trick you were after and can now pull it off. Remove the entire system? You lose that sense of accomplishment.

Picture some martial art series, where the character grows into their style, the philosophy, or what have you. Now picture a game where it comes down to 'Karate'. Now take that game and have every martial art just ... be listed. No mechanical differences.

"Tell me how you use your martial art to overcome this challenge."

You could be a beginning character or a veteran, and the core mechanic is the same. You declare what you're doing, you roll, done.

The character never gets 'better' at their martial art, and the difference between Tae Kwon Do and Jiu Jitsu is non-existent.

So... what's the point then?
Now, here's the thing. We mentioned at the beginning that some games do well with this. Tiny d6 comes to mind.

But some games... that granularity helps provide the feel of a genre or setting. Like, certainly, generic dungeon crawl RPG could have 'Martial Arts' as a tag, that you can invoke to overcome a challenge.

But it probably gives the characters access to more than one tag, allows for some variety in what the character can do while keeping it simple - and that works.

"I'm playing a monk. Martial Arts, Acrobatics, and Insight are my tags."

There's some, however, we feel aren't served by going that simple. Superheroes for example. There should be a stark difference if you're playing Robin vs Superman, or Hulk vs Foggy Nelson.

And the great thing about playing a superhero, we feel, is the sheer pleasure of designing something unique, that stands out from all other super heroes, and is truly 'yours'.

We made a technosavant character for one game, a dryad who can grow an entire forest in the middle of a city, in another, a shadowy vigilante who acts as an avatar of the City itself in a third, and a girl born in the Underworld who is somewhere between dead and alive.

What they do, how they do it, the very feel of their talents and powers and interests, all stood out on a mechanical level, and the characters could grow, evolve, and adapt based on how the campaign runs.

Reduce their powers to 3 or 4 generic 'sets', and you lose something. (Marvel Heroic, by the way, as far as we're concerned, went as bare-bones as one could and still get a feel for your character and what they can do, and still be functional.)

Imagine if the game said 'you can fly? Write down 'fly'. How do you fly? Doesn't matter. How fast? Doesn't matter. Can you fly in space? Game doesn't care. Can you hover? Game doesn't care. Can it be taken away? Game doesn't care.'

Now, the argument we're expecting to hear is 'well, you roleplay it'. And sure, that's a viable response. For players who are cool with just sitting back and going with the narration, keeping track of how their character 'develops', awesome.

But then, any growth is arbitrary. The player decides if, how, and why the character gets better, and doesn't once have to work to get it. It can happen between sessions 'just because I felt like it fit'.

And, sure, if it works for them, awesome. We hope they have fun.

But a player who wants to look at the sheet and go 'hmm, the character's been pushing in this department, maybe we can progress a bit there, and a bit over here, too', there's nothing to support them. And some people want to see and feel that sense of accomplishment.

"I had to go through hell before I got better at this." There's that feeling of reward for the effort put in that some players want. And for some settings, it makes a lot more sense than with others.

"Well, that isn't the point of the game," is another one we've heard for some games. A stylistic choice. We can see that too.

However, and here's the thing, that kind of style should really be the GM's decision.

Case in Point. Werewolf the Apocalypse. The characters are broken down by auspice (phase of the moon), Tribe (duties), and Breed (human, lupine). Then there's different septs (territories).

There's a big bad, and multiple angles to take on the big bad, there's a 'rage' mechanic, where the character has to try to control their flipping out to kill things, there's abilities, and there's rituals, and stuff.

And the group can decide what to focus on. Fight the big bad? Sure. Look after the locals? Yes. Politics between Tribes / Septs? Of course. Exploring the spirit world to discover Secrets? No problem.

And the characters can be tweaked to go with this, they can grow in a variety of ways through the adventures, and the players can see the characters flourish regardless of the way the game's being run.

Now, if it was reduced to:
Breed, Auspice, Tribe, and 'Magic' without a lot of detail into what all of this DOES... it loses that nuance, and a whole lot of the feel of the setting.

And if we're told, "Well, you're playing a werewolf, but it's really about the stigma of being an outsider from society" ... that cuts off a lot of GMs and Players at the knees. Maybe they want to explore something else as a werewolf?

Maybe, for the player, the point is playing a werewolf and exploring something other than 'the stigma of being an outsider'. Maybe they want to feel the thrill of being, you know, a werewolf and doing werewolf things.

If we're playing a superhero, we want to explore many different facets of being a superhero, which also depends on what kind we're playing, what they can do, and what hooks we've added into them.

Being told, "well, it's actually about..." eliminates choice. Imagine if Star Wars came out as an RPG, and you're told, 'it's about redemption'. Everything else in Star Wars isn't even touched on in the game.

Just... sure. There's a place for such games, but we feel some settings and genres aren't served well by it. Allowing the group to decide what the game's about is a big thing. Giving the players the feeling of progression in some settings is important.

This is why a game coming out... we were disappointed as hell. We'll be looking it over, perhaps they've added nuance, but... we're not hopeful.

It's also why we're looking at some other upcoming RPGs we've literally waited decades to see ... and we're on edge because they've not said anything about the game engine.

We'll see. Anyway, happy gaming, may you find what you're looking for at your table!