There is an interesting question: if something is easily hackable (Shadowdark, say) does that mean it is a generic or universal system? I don't think so. I think it just means that the core of the system has flexibility of presentation built into it.
it seems obvious on its face that all universal or generic systems have built in limitations. That hardly seem controversial, and therefore not really worth derailing the thread over.
Is that better or worse than a thread circling the drain for an interminably long time as two posters go back and forth, talking past one another to make the same points over and over and over and over...?
I was listening to a podcast this morning that was covering the post WW1 struggle between Britain and Russia over who got to control Persia/Iran. They talked about the companies trying to secure oil rights, mercenaries, and then other folks doing archaeology etc. It got me thinking about how war...
I think it is worth noting that the playtest uses the word "villain" -- which kind of precludes the sort of thing you are talking about where the PCs are more "anti heroes."
I don't think running a villain campaign would be especially rewarding, fun or even tolerable. Villains, by definition...
I get the strong sense that I asked the question poorly, since so many people are arguing against generic systems in general.
What i really wanted to know is do you (like me) have a go-to setting or milieu against which you measure a system that purports to be generic or universal?
The actual...