Gaming System Framework

[Charles Wilcox]

The RPG Toolkit wiki is working on something similar. Its aims to get a bunch of generic system bits that can be combined into full games.

While I think its idea of interchangeable systems components is overly ambitious I like the idea of gathering and organize various kinds of systems.

Thanks for the RPG Toolkit Wiki reference... interesting indeed.

I do agree it is ambitious to have such interchangeable parts in a game, yet I can see the appeal.  Though there are some system modules that are inherently dependent upon others.  The underlying numerical system being the most basic one that nearly everything would depend on.  Attributes could count at their own module, yet what attributes exist affect the design of the rest of the system...  Very trixie indeed.

I do feel that game mechanics, setting, and GM/player interaction gameplay are three fairly decoupled areas of RPGs, and could be designed to be modular.

[Charles Wilcox]

I'm going to voice my concern with two statements you made.

I see mechanics as being a transparent tool to aid in the gaming experience.  If they become visible, I think they are encumbering gameplay.  If they become the focus, then the experience will eventually become rote at best, a thorn of constant pain at worst.

"if they become visible, I think they are encumbering gameplay"

Good mechanics can and sometimes SHOULD be visible.
Mechanics can heighten tension. Holding dice can instill a rush of excitement.

Mechanics should not interrupt game play, tone, or the flow of play... but the assumption that in order to fulfil this they must be invisible and not the focus of play... that seems wrong to me.

Tony LB has a game called Misery Bubblegum, and in it you physically mark paperclips every time you up a conflict.
You slide cards around.
Your conflicts are wholly defined by index cards.
You enact motifs for the sole purpose of getting more dice.

The mechanics in dice are very visible and they often become the focus of a scene. But... the stories told are rock solid, and that's partially because of mechanics being so visible and driving.

I do understand your point, and perhaps I overstated mine.  The motivation behind my argument is that I've experienced plenty of gaming sessions where the rules got in the way of the "reality" of the experience, and that is what I wish to remedy.

I don't understand creating a unique set of rules for players to experience as a goal of designing a game, just a means to the ends.

I think this is dead wrong. I think that mechanics should be about what the game is about.

For specific games I think you are correct, but for a generic gaming system, I believe you are wrong.  Gaming mechanics that affect or dictate the type or style of storytelling will not be used because it will be limited only to those styles of gameplay.  A realistic and gritty mechanic would not be appropriate for a superhero campaign, and an epic and super-protagonist-ish mechanic would not work well in a "noir" story.  A generic gaming system needs to be flexible and adaptable enough to handle a spectrum of gameplay style.  And if such a system existed, it would enable many different settings and storytelling styles to be played.

[Charles Wilcox]

A lot of the Forge-baked games I like are very specifically designed to do a certain thing, and everything from setting to mechanics support this goal.  If RPG's were tools, they'd be roofing hammers and Allen wrenches, no vise-grips and Swiss-Army knives.  But that's why I love them -- if you take the right tool for the right job and use it correctly, you're very likely to get a good result.

But it is possible to develop a new tool that can supplant several old tools.  An adjustable wrench can usually do the job of any fixed-size wrench, and a multiple-tip screwdriver can almost always work as well as a set of fixed screwdrivers.

Of course, if all you ever need is a specific type of screwdriver, why use the slightly more complicated one when the fixed one does the job.  :)

If I did want a Swiss-Army knife of a game, there are a lot of good ones out there already, enough that I can choose a "generic" system that fits the game I want to write/play.  If it's a homebrew not for actual publication, I can also adapt lots of well-known systems like the Unisystem and Gurps. 

So at this point, I'm not going to take the time to master a new system unless I hear that it does something better, simpler, or faster than one of the systems I already know.  That's harsh, but it's a buyer's market out there.

Fair enough.  Unless the mechanics themselves offer something new, you would not bother to adopt a new game; that is perfectly understandable.

[Charles Wilcox]

So far I have gotten allot of decent feedback, and allot of new thoughts to mull over.  However, I feel I have gotten away from my own point in posting.  So, to re-iterate (hopefully more clearly):

I have been considering making a gaming framework for some time.  What I mean by "Gaming Framework" is a basic set of game mechanics on top of which one could build your own game, using your own setting and tweaks to gameplay.  Examples include d20 SRD, GURPS, Hero, and many many more that I'm unaware of.

I'm really curious to know is: how desirable is such a generic/universal gaming framework to people who are designing new games?  More specifically, what proportion of people out there seriously consider using a pre-existing framework, versus creating everything new on their own?  And finally, if you choose not to use an existing system, is it because of something lacking in current gaming frameworks?

I'm trying to measure the desirability of such systems, so that I can judge whether or not I should seriously pursue my ideas further.

[David Artman]

I have waited and watched, but now I'll chime in as a "System Doesn't Matter", "Design What Doesn't Matter", and generic system proponent (see my sig).

...how desirable is such a generic/universal gaming framework to people who are designing new games?

I do not think there are many designers who are seeking a system they can plug-and-play. That is, generally, a product for the GM/players.

Consider computer gaming: There are stand-alone, fully-in-house-designed games, there are engine-based games, and there are middleware products that help designers make one or the other. It sounds like you want to make middleware for RPGs... but I do not think the tabletop gaming segment has the same problems that computer game designers have: that is, RPGs are very easy for which to write systems. When someone doesn't want to write a system for an RPG, there are several "engines" out there already, with tons of free and for-pay support.

Your challenge, then, will be to provide some middle ground between the two, or PERHAPS a "metasystem" that can readily be tuned for all those tones and grittiness and such you've mentioned. But otherwise, the tabletop segment is bloated with such options, and folks might sooner buy into one which has the level of detail or tonal elements they want, without having to "roll their own" using your metasystem.

Conversely (as I believe) there is still an open space for LARP engines--and such LARP play has a strong need for such portability and universality, being a smaller market and having very-real issues with speed of learning (ex: con play or getting new players). Tabletop can be learned very quickly (at least enough to get through the average conflict with minimal GM assistance). LARP systems, conversely, must fly solo, often with no GM there to bail-out confused players.Thus, universality and systemic consistency becopmes quite valueable.

But, then again, I have a two year jump on you, if you want to shift to the LARP space. ;-) Maybe you'd care to review GLASS (below) and see if I am missing something you'd need to play games you are envisioning?

More specifically, what proportion of people out there seriously consider using a pre-existing framework, versus creating everything new on their own?

This will be all speculation, unless someone has some real market data about sales or convention saturation or some other metric.

I would image there *is* a fair number of folks wanting ready-to-run systems to wrap their cool setting or scenarios around--otherwise, why are there 5000 new d20 books every week?

And finally, if you choose not to use an existing system, is it because of something lacking in current gaming frameworks?

Myself, I choose to create my generic LARP system because all of the LARPs in which I have played all basically *do* the same thing, but they all have a ton of variations (as well as generally disfunctional rules). I am trying to solve that, with GLASS, but I am also hoping the adoption of my generic system--and its supporting online community and portal--will make it far easier to join a game while travelling or at a con or when one moves.

Basically, it's super-easy to find, say, a D&D group no matter where you are in the western world. I would like to provide that with GLASS, for the LARP world. But, again, I have a specific goal with a clear target; I'm not designing without a target market and hoping someone adopts my new widget. More importantly, though, I am not desgning ONLY for a market...I am driven to do so....

I'm trying to measure the desirability of such systems, so that I can judge whether or not I should seriously pursue my ideas further.

This is, easily, the worst of your questions. (Take that positively... keep reading.)

NO ONE in this world can answer a "should" question about YOUR design. In fact,if you are only pursuing this goal because you perceive a potential market--with no internal drive or passion--I can pretty much assure you it won't pan out. You'll either not be able to finish, when the going gets tough; or you will not be able to convey the joy and excitement you feel when you think of your system.

And I think that's the key reply to your whole general post: you should not have to ask if you "should pursue" this idea--you should, rather, be unable NOT to pursue it, because of the burn to get it out and show it to the world. Further, the adoption (or not) of interest by the 7300 members of this forum has NOTHING to do with that: it's your baby; who cares what a particular community thinks of its eye color or weight?

To borrow the words of a sage: Do or do not; there is no try.

Hope this helps to inspire, rather than discourage. I actually LOVE universal systems, and I would look forward to pillaging--err, studying--yours for inspirations for GLASS;
David

[Certified]

How desirable is a universal rule set is a difficult question to answer at best I can give you an opinion. For what it's worth my regular gaming group is currently playing a game of Hero. However, I think some of the other flexible systems are being overlooked. Both Palladium and Chaosium use a framework that they would adjust to the desired settings. Although not marketed as universal systems they made it easy to learn one basic system and be able to play in any of their game settings.

My thoughts for what it's worth is try to partner with a setting writer. See how your ideas for a system mesh with various settings. I think as an independent the total package is an important factor since there are other universal systems out there already. Perhaps releasing the Core rules separate after the first few offerings.

I hope that helps and good luck. I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

-Dave

[TroyLovesRPG]

Hello Charles,

After reading more posts in this thread, I realize that I'm not a supporter of generic systems because I haven't found one that I really like. So, I'm looking at your endeavor as a repeat of what has happened over the past 20 years. There are many generic systems that do the same thing: resolve tasks based on a difficulty level modified with a random factor (dice). If you create one of those, then good luck. If you want to create something different that actually stimulates role-playing in a variety of genres then this will become my favorite thread.

I want not just a new way to move some numbers around, but a way to develop interesting characters that I love to play using a simple set of rules. Over the years, I see too many rules and options that fail to enhance the role-playing experience. The games get bogged down in opportunities, situation modifiers, rule exceptions, etc. Those are perfect for strategists; just strip away the creative text and you've got a game that hurts my brain. That IS the wizards mentality.

Looking to a create a universal system is similar to discovering the unified theory of energy in physics. Its a great pursuit, but doesn't affect the average person. The granularity becomes so fine that getting from the base rules to a complex level is tedious. I challenge you to start with the high level ideas of role-playing and introduce detail if absolutely necessary. Role-playing is an extremely high-level and complex experience that relies on the player's performance in interepreting the character. Therefore, it is important for the character creation and rules to support that; not the other way around.

Yes, I want a universal ROLE-playing system. There are tons of articles about RPG, GNS, etc. on this site. You could read them all and still not know where to begin. From this player of RPGs I offer this simple request:

Create a RPG framework that allows me to play any type of character from any genre with any other character. I want clean, simple rules that make absolute sense after about a few minutes of studying and minimize surprises in the future. I want new information (settings, characters, equipment, etc.) to work with the existing rules; contrasted to introducing a new rule with every sentence. Above all, I want to foster a comfortable social setting and creative role-playing. That's all.

Troy

[Charles Wilcox]

First of all, I do not have significant LARP experience, so I don't feel qualified to make many judgments.

I have waited and watched, but now I'll chime in as a "System Doesn't Matter", "Design What Doesn't Matter", and generic system proponent (see my sig).

...how desirable is such a generic/universal gaming framework to people who are designing new games?

I do not think there are many designers who are seeking a system they can plug-and-play. That is, generally, a product for the GM/players.

Consider computer gaming: There are stand-alone, fully-in-house-designed games, there are engine-based games, and there are middleware products that help designers make one or the other. It sounds like you want to make middleware for RPGs... but I do not think the tabletop gaming segment has the same problems that computer game designers have: that is, RPGs are very easy for which to write systems. When someone doesn't want to write a system for an RPG, there are several "engines" out there already, with tons of free and for-pay support.

I see my idea initially as a "engine" in the computer-gaming terminology.  And although it is easy to write a quick and dirty RPG system, it is not easy to write a robust and resilient gaming system.  The fact that so many people write their own system I think it partially attributed to the lack of good engines out there.

Your challenge, then, will be to provide some middle ground between the two, or PERHAPS a "metasystem" that can readily be tuned for all those tones and grittiness and such you've mentioned. But otherwise, the tabletop segment is bloated with such options, and folks might sooner buy into one which has the level of detail or tonal elements they want, without having to "roll their own" using your metasystem.

I do believe I have a few ideas to enable flexible story-style switching inside the same set of rules.  Of course, whether or not I can design a full system like that remains to be seen.

Conversely (as I believe) there is still an open space for LARP engines--and such LARP play has a strong need for such portability and universality, being a smaller market and having very-real issues with speed of learning (ex: con play or getting new players). Tabletop can be learned very quickly (at least enough to get through the average conflict with minimal GM assistance). LARP systems, conversely, must fly solo, often with no GM there to bail-out confused players.Thus, universality and systemic consistency becopmes quite valueable.

I would assert that some popular RPGs out there are not learned quickly, because there are always more "advanced" rules that affect the situation, and experienced players have the advantage for knowing the rules and new players are clueless.  (I feel this is one of my driving motivations, not have a system that does not handicap a new player for lack of system knowledge.)

And finally, if you choose not to use an existing system, is it because of something lacking in current gaming frameworks?

Myself, I choose to create my generic LARP system because all of the LARPs in which I have played all basically *do* the same thing, but they all have a ton of variations (as well as generally disfunctional rules). I am trying to solve that, with GLASS, but I am also hoping the adoption of my generic system--and its supporting online community and portal--will make it far easier to join a game while travelling or at a con or when one moves.

It is interesting that some people find the variations of rules across games portraying the same type of situation to be annoying (for their lack of uniformity), while others may specifically design different rules to be "different", for flair, and something new.  I personally fall into the former group when it comes to being a player.

I'm trying to measure the desirability of such systems, so that I can judge whether or not I should seriously pursue my ideas further.

This is, easily, the worst of your questions. (Take that positively... keep reading.)

NO ONE in this world can answer a "should" question about YOUR design. In fact,if you are only pursuing this goal because you perceive a potential market--with no internal drive or passion--I can pretty much assure you it won't pan out. You'll either not be able to finish, when the going gets tough; or you will not be able to convey the joy and excitement you feel when you think of your system.

And I think that's the key reply to your whole general post: you should not have to ask if you "should pursue" this idea--you should, rather, be unable NOT to pursue it, because of the burn to get it out and show it to the world. Further, the adoption (or not) of interest by the 7300 members of this forum has NOTHING to do with that: it's your baby; who cares what a particular community thinks of its eye color or weight?

To borrow the words of a sage: Do or do not; there is no try.

Hope this helps to inspire, rather than discourage. I actually LOVE universal systems, and I would look forward to pillaging--err, studying--yours for inspirations for GLASS;
David

I am driven internally to tinker with this idea, and that is my motivation.  However, my general thoughts have been to determine if there is a niche for such a product, and from that figure out how much energy to invest in my idea.  And I think my resolve has strengthened while reading and writing in this thread.

Thanks for the ideas and support.

[Charles Wilcox]

How desirable is a universal rule set is a difficult question to answer at best I can give you an opinion. For what it's worth my regular gaming group is currently playing a game of Hero. However, I think some of the other flexible systems are being overlooked. Both Palladium and Chaosium use a framework that they would adjust to the desired settings. Although not marketed as universal systems they made it easy to learn one basic system and be able to play in any of their game settings.

I must admit, I've heard of Palladium, but played neither system.  It is possible there are systems out there that are "closer" to my ideal.  Yet I feel there comes a point where I need to stop looking for better ideas and just articulate what I desire in a game, and proceed to make it.  Once that is done, I'm sure I'll discover other systems that will continue to inform and challenge mine.

My thoughts for what it's worth is try to partner with a setting writer. See how your ideas for a system mesh with various settings. I think as an independent the total package is an important factor since there are other universal systems out there already. Perhaps releasing the Core rules separate after the first few offerings.

I hope that helps and good luck. I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

I do agree, I need to approach one or two designers who have a setting, and collaborate to make a game, and go from there.

I think it helps to focus on my ideas.  And if I should produce something complete enough, I'll drop a line on here in the future about it.  :)

[Charles Wilcox]

After reading more posts in this thread, I realize that I'm not a supporter of generic systems because I haven't found one that I really like. So, I'm looking at your endeavor as a repeat of what has happened over the past 20 years. There are many generic systems that do the same thing: resolve tasks based on a difficulty level modified with a random factor (dice). If you create one of those, then good luck. If you want to create something different that actually stimulates role-playing in a variety of genres then this will become my favorite thread.

I'm not sure if my ideas would do that; they mostly focus on making the rules straightforward, flexible, and non-obtrusive.  Depending on how successful I am at those goals, it could allow players to focus more on the role-playing, instead of rules-lawyer-ing and roll-playing.

I want not just a new way to move some numbers around, but a way to develop interesting characters that I love to play using a simple set of rules. Over the years, I see too many rules and options that fail to enhance the role-playing experience. The games get bogged down in opportunities, situation modifiers, rule exceptions, etc. Those are perfect for strategists; just strip away the creative text and you've got a game that hurts my brain. That IS the wizards mentality.

Agreed.

Looking to a create a universal system is similar to discovering the unified theory of energy in physics. Its a great pursuit, but doesn't affect the average person. The granularity becomes so fine that getting from the base rules to a complex level is tedious. I challenge you to start with the high level ideas of role-playing and introduce detail if absolutely necessary. Role-playing is an extremely high-level and complex experience that relies on the player's performance in interepreting the character. Therefore, it is important for the character creation and rules to support that; not the other way around.

I'm not quite sure I understand that you mean.  I would argue that the "conservation of energy" principle has bettered everyone's lives, not just the scientists who actually understand it's value and application.  In a similar way, I think universal gaming framework would benefit players of the game, even if only the game designer and possibly GM understood it's value.

Yes, I want a universal ROLE-playing system. There are tons of articles about RPG, GNS, etc. on this site. You could read them all and still not know where to begin. From this player of RPGs I offer this simple request:

Create a RPG framework that allows me to play any type of character from any genre with any other character. I want clean, simple rules that make absolute sense after about a few minutes of studying and minimize surprises in the future. I want new information (settings, characters, equipment, etc.) to work with the existing rules; contrasted to introducing a new rule with every sentence. Above all, I want to foster a comfortable social setting and creative role-playing. That's all.

That's a tall order.  ;-)  And, I also want a system capable of the same thing.

[TroyLovesRPG]

Hello Charles,

Great! This is the opportunity to create something that everyone would want. The problem is that EVERYONE thinks they can do it better. You do. I do. We all do. Otherwise, the Forge wouldn't exists. I propose starting from scratch with high level goals in mind, taking into consideration the variety of players, personalities, age groups, interests, time constraints, motives, art, interaction, preparation, delivery methods, genres and last--but not least--how to attract third party designers to use the system. I agree that working with a settings designer is a good start, and also looking at how the design can work with any setting out there. The trick to making the Framework possible is that by default it must have capabilities to include ALL settings and genres. I think you'll find that this is akin to politics. Its all about pleasing people.

Since an RPG of any design is driven by the players, maybe its best to survey the players about what they want. Each one of those goals has benefits and drawbacks. Including everyone is the best way to promote a system and gain favor. Since gaming may be a passing phase with some, then focusing on a small group could be desirable. Your goals to satisfy the players becomes complicated:
Please all the players all the time.
Please all the players some of the time.
Please some of the players all the time.
Please some of the players some of the time.

I think this is a project that I would certainly like to work on with a group. I have ideas buzzing around and many that I've placed on paper and just don't know what to do with them. I always say to myself that I'll work on that one day, complete it and distribute it. The extent of my success is limited to some nice printouts and playtesting with friends. Its possible that I will diverge and create something of my own. It just hasn't happened...yet.

Troy

[Nathaniel B]

Hi, long time lurker first time poster (slow typist & I read much of the suggested reading first).  My name is Nathaniel, and I’d like to discuss some ideas I had for a gaming system [a framework].  I've been lurking around for some time now and  would like to weigh in.

My first games, including the original iteration of my system, used some form of d20, FUDGE, WW's storyteller, or GURPS as a basis for the system and tweaked it to fit the new world/premise and playability.  I realized that I had done so much tweaking, and the tweaks were all so similar to one another, that I would be probably be better off designing my own system (so I scrapped what I had and started from scrach keeping in mind the lessons I learned).  So, off and on for the last couple of years, I've been developing my system between college breaks, and during the semester I play-tested it in open entry/exit sessions on campus and consequently designed some good, internally consistant, and fun scenarios originally only to test the system I designed.  I only had to run the first couple of sessions, later I learned to type up the rules, make copies and just hand them off to my testers, collecting design gold periodically in the form of constructive feedback. Unfortunately the college is doing construction on the building where the campus club used to meet, and it has since moved off campus and out of my influence, much to my chagrin.  [Never been one for e-mail/text based games as a replacement, mostly because of the aforementioned slow typing malady.]

My system has been in development for several years now, and is in its fourth and probably final iteration after 3 major, and a dozen or so minor, rewrite sessions which followed play-testing.  I used two separate groups of regular testers [currently have only one irregular group] and multiple game world/settings; mostly being my take on: pulp fantasy, modern gothic horror/noir, space opera/western, & (usually zombie) apocalypse.  It also has two forms hard (gritty and realistic as I could make it; uses full rules, works for all CA), and soft (used mostly for pure cinimatic Nar [reduction for ease of play, where you don't need or want the extra rules]; uses limited/simplified rules mostly using conflict resolution for actions, less traits/stats, and uses a lower standard of distinctions for items [rougher arbitrary terms and values]).

Also my system is a (somewhat simulationist) attempt at a single universal RPG system that would work equally well in a wide range of game settings and situations (worlds).  [Hence the current name: Game Operations Director‘s Holistic Universal Gaming System: GOD HUGS]  I wanted to have the flexibility of using the same system rules for any CA the group happened to be following within their chronicle.  I wanted a system that was both consistent with itself and accurately would simulate and defend its principal assumptions, at least as far as a pen and paper (or MMO) RPG could.  [The corollary to this, that the game world/setting must also be internally consistent, I assume to be understood for all games, and I always keep this in mind when designing any game]  I found through that many of the systems out there, while usually well tailored for their specific game setting, only support a limited range of CA’s (usually only one intended and another unintended often called dysfunctional) and still further limit greatly the range of actions a character could be reasonably able to undertake [the tailoring is very tight on many], or they do with out formalized rules at all for the subject/action either way by leaving such rules to be mitigated by the players/GM through the confines of the social contract.  These limitations are system interfering with gameplay, which seems to me to be a form of incoherence, and I wish to avoid having to invoke the golden rule of RPGs more than once in a game; as the only proper time for it is in the beginning before play starts (IMHO).

Now I'd like to post a link to an outline/overview of it and start a thread in the playtesting forum but when typing the outline up in laymans terms it came to several pages [too long to post] and I don't know how to upload files (never learned how).  I know that you need someone to host it (?) and I'm not sure what else.  I was wondering if any of you who have done this before could PM me with directions on how I do that or point me in the direction where I could find out what I need to know for my self (free sites if possible; broke college student after all).

I don't mean to threadjack/crap (if I am) but I think my system is just an attempt at what this thread is discussing: a universal system, an attempt at a unified system that can service all creative agendas equally well across a wide spectrum of settings & scenarios.

I'd like to discuss the nuances of why I went the route I did, why I think it was a good route to take, and also give out ideas for other struggling designers out there; but to do so I'd need to reference my work, and to reference my work, it needs to be out there to be referenced.  So please, any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks.