In my last post, I proclaimed that, despite Ron Edwards’ argument that “System Does Matter,” an indie role-playing game (RPG) could nonetheless be generic.
I was wrong.
It helps to define “indie,” because in one sense of the word, the argument from my previous post still stands, but in the sense that I had intended, it was way off base. The most commonly accepted definition of an indie RPG is simply an RPG owned by its creator. In this regard, sure, an indie RPG can be generic, with PDQ, FATE, and my own MULRAH standing as examples.
However, my last post was really discussing Forge-inspired indie games which favor conflict resolution over task resolution and increase narrative control by players, among other innovations. Ironically, neither PDQ nor FATE, the two games most influencing MULRAH, embrace either of these trends. While “Style Points” in PDQ# and Fate Points in FATE create some element of meta-game in which players control the story more than they might in a traditional game, both remain quite solidly in the realm of task-oriented, GM-driven games.
In his essay “Simulationism: The Right to Dream,” Edwards hesitantly argues that rules-lite systems are actually Simulationist, even though they claim to be “story-oriented.” In other words, the minimalist rules leftover from paring down traditional games do not necessarily lead to quality, theme-driven, collaborative story-telling. Based on our playtests of MULRAH, which started as a simple mash-up of PDQ and FATE, I’m inclined to agree. Even with MULRAH’s rules for player-created content, Edwards’ estimations that, in rules-lite games, “playing the character as conceived is the first priority” and that players do not contribute to “outcomes and final-resolutions” are both correct.
Furthermore, simply flipping a switch from “task” to “conflict” resolution and adding in a mechanism for player narrative control do not lead to Narrativist play. What kind of conflicts will the game handle? Over what elements of the story will players have narrative control? Specificity around these answers, including how the game mechanics themselves will support them, build a game that is both playable and meaningful. While it may be possible for a game to act as a guide to the players on how to construct the rules to tell the stories they want to tell, such a game would be far from MULRAH’s “rules-lite” one-sheet effort. More effective is simply to find some free or cheap indie games that have already made the choices and have been play-tested for you.
That said, MULRAH’s inspirations, PDQ and FATE, have led to some of the most highly-rated games in the RPG community: FATE’s Spirit of the Century is the #2 rated game overall on RPG.net, while PDQ’s Truth & Justice, Swashbucklers of the 7 Skies, and the Zorcerer of Zo are all in the top 7%. For players coming from the confines of games focused purely on system (GURPS, HERO), the “rules-lite” nature of FATE and PDQ provides a refreshing change of focus, as proven by the rave reviews promoting these games’ lavish settings, exciting characters, or both. However, for players seeking truly collaborative story-telling or grappling with narrative themes, someone else’s detailed setting or awesome character concepts will be ultimately unsatisfying.
The most “generic” Forge-inspired games that I know of are the Pool, Universalis, and Primetime Adventures, but even these games are more specific in their design than most “generic” games want to be. I’ll likely discuss them in a separate post, but, for now, let’s just say we’re playing these instead of MULRAH, no offense to me.



