Gaming System Framework

[Charles Wilcox]

What would it take for you to develop your new RPG idea using a Gaming System Framework?

Gaming System Framework:
    A core set of rules that could be extended upon to make a full RPG, and could be the base of various independent RPGs.

I have thought about creating my own RPG over the years, and put serious thought into several aspects of it, and discovered what I really wish to make is the fundamental gaming mechanics.  The setting and the style of play I see as being modular and separate, yet all three need to be present to make an RPG.

I wish to know how people would take interest in such a system.  So, if you would be interested, what would be necessary in the Framework.  If you would not be interested, what prevents you from seriously considering utilizing an external base Framework?

[Eero Tuovinen]

Tell us more about what you mean with "fundamental gaming mechanics". Is it just the random number generation method, or does it include fixed character attributes, or what? Compare to d20, if you will: is it more or less than the basics you get in the d20 SRD? Or the new Runequest SRD, for that matter. Or is it more along the lines of "this game uses d10+attribute rolls to resolve tasks", without defining what an attribute is?

What it would take for me to be interested: I started to list things like centralized branding, marketing and product approval system, but then I realized that d20 pretty much already does most of it, and has a relatively large market base to begin with. So instead, I'll answer the question of why I'm not happily creating d20 product right now: congested and shaky market, and I have more interesting projects in the pipeline. If I didn't have better stuff to do, I could well imagine writing a couple of d20 books, but as it is, no dice.

What prevents me from considering it: as the above implies, it's because I do a better job myself for any given project. If you manage to create game system that's objectively, truly and honestly better for a project I'm doing than something I'd whip up myself, then we can talk. But I don't quite see how that would be possible, frankly. Wouldn't it be the height of unlikeliness that you just happened to create system that fit my game better than something made for the purpose? Yeah, I think so too.

A suggestion and a question: have you considered the Shadow of Yesterday as a gaming system framework? As far as I can see the licencing is easy, the system is robust, and many people like it. What would your new system offer that TSOY isn't already doing?

The actually interesting question: what I'd really like to know is, how do you view roleplaying as a hobby and artform right this moment? I'm asking, because the very idea of a standard system seems so disconnected from the reality of the state-of-the-art design that I'm having difficulty in understanding where you're coming from here. What is a good game? What would a game developer even be doing on top of the system framework? Setting writing?

[Callan S.]

Hi Charles,

How would you figure out when you've found a 'fundimental mechanic'? Would it feel right?

Just a quick pitch of an idea - would it be a fundimental mechanic or would you have found a fundimental question you want to ask? Asking includes stuff like setting up reality simulation rules and such like, and many other rule types.

I just see a strong desire to find 'the' fundimental mechanic in your post. I wonder if perhaps your looking for the question you really want to ask.

[jeremycoatney]

     Wow, it's been a while since I was here last... anyhow, it is really hard to make a successful Gaming Framework that people will buy into, but in the event you wish to try you need to come up with a system that covers every type of game, and which needs little to no conversion between different types of setting and games. As has been mentioned, there are already such systems, and their games have become inumerable (albeit I don't like D20 much, and I would not touch it with a 40 meter cattle prod.)
     My own system is being designed to provide generic rules for any kind of setting (I could think of), but then I am also providing example settings and adventure books that go with the system. At the moment, few of these books are done.
     Despite my efforts in a similar direction to your own, and my encouragement to try it if you think it will be fun to work with, or you think you can make it work out, I must admit that generally if someone is creating their own RPG they have a certain look/feel in mind for its opperation, as has been mentioned. It is this that prevents me from using other people's systems as a base for my work as matter-of-fact. I developed my system to be of a certain look, feel, and operation that I liked for the sorts of settings I am supplying it for, there were many systems that came close to this, but none that were quite the same.
     I will say that there are a lot of people out there who simply don't have the time/energy to create their own systems, or they stop themselves from doing so because they figure noone will play their game (or buy it if they are commercially minded.) These people might buy into such as system, but it must have a significant and verbose groundwork applied to it. You must supply something so complete that the only thing missing is a specific setting in which the game is placed, otherwise people will simply choose something else.
     Obviously I could be wrong, but hey, this is my opinion and I hope it helps.

[TroyLovesRPG]

I've seen many posts like this on the Forge and it surprises me. I don't think its realistic that other designers will want to pay or give credit to an unknown and untested sytem. Also, you would benefit more by creating something new and copyright it. Work with a couple of buddies and put something on the market that kicks butt. Then (and only then) if it becomes a hit will you have the position to request others to join in. Plus, there are tons of RPG systems out there. The RPG world needs more creative writing not creative mechanics.

Example: Wizards grants an OGL for their D20 systems, some of the monsters, but not the settings. Why? Because the system doesn't matter. The settings with all the juicy information, color and background are what makes the game. On the other hand, their Magic card game is one that will never, ever have an OGL. Wizards would die if that system fell into the hands of others, simply because that card system is the money-maker. I believe they have service-marked the word "tap" to indicate a 90 degree rotation of a card.

I suggest that you first publish an adventure based on the D20 OGL and make it a hit. That would give you a lot of experience working within an OGL and also how to take advantage of an existing system.

Good luck,

Troy

[mratomek]

I like your idea of a framework. I created one that focuses on a hybrid or RPG/Wargaming, called SkirMASH! (current working title).

The idea is that the game supplies the underlying mechanics to create and do just about anyting, on the tabletop with miniatures. The game allows the individual to fill-in a lot of the details, offering a non-obtrusive game engine.

Creating an all-inclusive engine can be difficut. There are language issues, scope issues, and at the end of the day, you have to tailor the engine to some extent to fit neatly into a box, otherwise you are doomed to fail.

[jeremycoatney]

I've seen many posts like this on the Forge and it surprises me. I don't think its realistic that other designers will want to pay or give credit to an unknown and untested system. Also, you would benefit more by creating something new and copyright it. Work with a couple of buddies and put something on the market that kicks butt. Then (and only then) if it becomes a hit will you have the position to request others to join in. Plus, there are tons of RPG systems out there. The RPG world needs more creative writing not creative mechanics.

Example: Wizards grants an OGL for their D20 systems, some of the monsters, but not the settings. Why? Because the system doesn't matter. The settings with all the juicy information, color and background are what makes the game. On the other hand, their Magic card game is one that will never, ever have an OGL. Wizards would die if that system fell into the hands of others, simply because that card system is the money-maker. I believe they have service-marked the word "tap" to indicate a 90 degree rotation of a card.

I suggest that you first publish an adventure based on the D20 OGL and make it a hit. That would give you a lot of experience working within an OGL and also how to take advantage of an existing system.

Good luck,

Troy

Why always D20... I know it's wide spread, but I just don't get why people use it for so much. Personally I don't like it. They are OKAY, but I really prefer almost every other system I've ever played, including Cinnabar, which can be a real monster.
     You do have a good point though, there are tons of RPG systems out there. There really isn't any reason people would want to pay money for one that no one has never heard of. Is it possible? Yes, but unlikely. Mine, such as it is, is available for free download for instance. Even then, not many people even look at it because it's only got the Fantasy Setting book and the Cybernetics and Human Augmentation setting book done at the moment. Can this be overcome? Maybe, but I'm just doing this part as a hobby at the moment, to allow me time to iron out the game systems I'm putting together. I don't expect to see any money from it.
     Once I'm done settings will follow in a more serious fashion, building on the rules and innumerable examples that I have completed I will more easily be able to create new adventures, settings, and devices. I also won't be accepting or adding to the D20 glut, which I am not fond of at all.

[Charles Wilcox]

Tell us more about what you mean with "fundamental gaming mechanics". Is it just the random number generation method, or does it include fixed character attributes, or what? Compare to d20, if you will: is it more or less than the basics you get in the d20 SRD? Or the new Runequest SRD, for that matter. Or is it more along the lines of "this game uses d10+attribute rolls to resolve tasks", without defining what an attribute is?

When I say "fundamental gaming mechanics", I'm referring to the whole set of rules required for the interactions between player characters, and all other entities in the game.  More specifically, I say "fundamental" to mean the minimal and most straightforward rules that can encompass anything one could reasonably expect to need.  And when I say "gaming mechanics", I'm not addressing rules regarding elements of storytelling, or player interactions.

I've not read any System Reference Document, so it's hard to say.

What it would take for me to be interested: I started to list things like centralized branding, marketing and product approval system, but then I realized that d20 pretty much already does most of it, and has a relatively large market base to begin with. So instead, I'll answer the question of why I'm not happily creating d20 product right now: congested and shaky market, and I have more interesting projects in the pipeline. If I didn't have better stuff to do, I could well imagine writing a couple of d20 books, but as it is, no dice.

It's interesting that you should think first of the public marketing capabilities you could take advantage of.  I was thinking what you would be looking for in a system if you were to build off of it.

What prevents me from considering it: as the above implies, it's because I do a better job myself for any given project. If you manage to create game system that's objectively, truly and honestly better for a project I'm doing than something I'd whip up myself, then we can talk. But I don't quite see how that would be possible, frankly. Wouldn't it be the height of unlikeliness that you just happened to create system that fit my game better than something made for the purpose? Yeah, I think so too.

For me, roleplaying is about the interactive experience, the storytelling, and the setting.  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.  But I suppose that is unique to my experience, which is that rules are usually inconsistent and become annoying.  So, I see rules as needing to be consistent and transparent to the other aspects of gameplay.  But, if you design rules as part of the unique experience, then I understand your point.

I would argue that most people who want to create an RPG are most likely considering a setting or a specific story they wish to tell.  I also feel that the people most inclined to create such a system will not be very adept at probability, statistics, modeling, and all the other math involved in the gaming mechanics.  These people I think would benefit from using a consistent, playtested, and available gaming framework to build their RPG on top of.  And the game that is created would be better for it.

A suggestion and a question: have you considered the Shadow of Yesterday as a gaming system framework? As far as I can see the licencing is easy, the system is robust, and many people like it. What would your new system offer that TSOY isn't already doing?

I have not encountered Shadow of Yesterday, and the webpage didn't appear to have enough information to answer your question.

The actually interesting question: what I'd really like to know is, how do you view roleplaying as a hobby and artform right this moment? I'm asking, because the very idea of a standard system seems so disconnected from the reality of the state-of-the-art design that I'm having difficulty in understanding where you're coming from here. What is a good game? What would a game developer even be doing on top of the system framework? Setting writing?

I don't really see much of the role-playing hobby nowadays, and only saw very mainstream games when I did play.  But what I did see made me feel that the industry (if it can be called that) is very fragmented.  Why would I want to learn another whole set of rules just to play out another type of story?  Seems like a cheap version of vendor lock-in, if you ask me.

[Charles Wilcox]

Hi Charles,

How would you figure out when you've found a 'fundimental mechanic'? Would it feel right?

Just a quick pitch of an idea - would it be a fundimental mechanic or would you have found a fundimental question you want to ask? Asking includes stuff like setting up reality simulation rules and such like, and many other rule types.

I just see a strong desire to find 'the' fundimental mechanic in your post. I wonder if perhaps your looking for the question you really want to ask.

I don't quite understand exactly what you are trying to say with the "fundamental question" line.  Can you please elaborate?

[Charles Wilcox]

     Wow, it's been a while since I was here last... anyhow, it is really hard to make a successful Gaming Framework that people will buy into, but in the event you wish to try you need to come up with a system that covers every type of game, and which needs little to no conversion between different types of setting and games. As has been mentioned, there are already such systems, and their games have become innumerable (albeit I don't like D20 much, and I would not touch it with a 40 meter cattle prod.)

I agree that such a system should be able to handle the requirements of any setting played on it.

As for conversion... the notion of needing to be able to import another character is a broken one; the specific mechanics of a system, including their strengths and weaknesses, could not be imported into another gaming system without becoming even more arcane than everything it attempts to model.  However, the concept of any character should be representable in my system.

     Despite my efforts in a similar direction to your own, and my encouragement to try it if you think it will be fun to work with, or you think you can make it work out, I must admit that generally if someone is creating their own RPG they have a certain look/feel in mind for its operation, as has been mentioned. It is this that prevents me from using other people's systems as a base for my work as matter-of-fact. I developed my system to be of a certain look, feel, and operation that I liked for the sorts of settings I am supplying it for, there were many systems that came close to this, but none that were quite the same.

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.

     I will say that there are a lot of people out there who simply don't have the time/energy to create their own systems, or they stop themselves from doing so because they figure no one will play their game (or buy it if they are commercially minded.) These people might buy into such as system, but it must have a significant and verbose groundwork applied to it. You must supply something so complete that the only thing missing is a specific setting in which the game is placed, otherwise people will simply choose something else.

I agree with your points.  As for things in my system that could get in the way of adoption, I think the game could be decoupled enough so that any component you could just drop, and either operate without it, or to replicate your own.  But the real point is that I think a system could be made so that it is better overall than any specific gaming rules out there.

     Obviously I could be wrong, but hey, this is my opinion and I hope it helps.

I think it does help to know people out there have similar thoughts, and what successes and experiences they have with it.

[Charles Wilcox]

Wow... so many separate thoughts to respond to...

I've seen many posts like this on the Forge and it surprises me.

Others saving the same thought gives me encouragement that this problem has been identified by others, enough such that they've discussed it and seriously thought about it.

The fact that is surprises you probably means you don't understand what the motivations behind these people are.

I don't think its realistic that other designers will want to pay or give credit to an unknown and untested sytem.

Initially, I agree that people creating RPGs currently probably want to retain complete autonomy and creative control over their works; most creative people are asocial when it comes to the subject of their art.

Every game is unknown and untested at one point, and they all mature.  Should I create a game and have it mature enough, I would expect people to want to use it enough to overcome their egos and give proper attribution.  And if such a time came for profitable publication, a financial agreement could be reached.

Also, you would benefit more by creating something new and copyright it.

"New" is such a relative word, but it would be new, and it would implicitly be copyrighted under U.S. Law.

Work with a couple of buddies and put something on the market that kicks butt. Then (and only then) if it becomes a hit will you have the position to request others to join in.

Very true if I were making a RPG, but I am not.  What I would need to do is to create my Framework and market it enough so that it is used in another's RPG that becomes successful in some capacity, and grow from there.

Plus, there are tons of RPG systems out there. The RPG world needs more creative writing not creative mechanics.

You insinuate that the gaming mechanics do not matter, compared to the story or gameplay.  I strongly disagree.  The rules are there to be arbitrator and world model, which are vital to any successful game.  As other people here have argued, their game would not work with another games rules' system, because the setting and rules rely on each other.  Try taking the rules of D&D and Amber, transpose them with the D&D and Amber settings, and see how very different the games would become.

(That said, I believe rules can be created to be setting agnostic.  And I believe settings should be gaming mechanic agnostic.)

I do agree that rules should not matter as much as creating a unique and diverse setting and game.  To that end, I believe having a common set of gaming mechanics that can be used in any setting would be a great boon.  RPG designers would not have to fret over creating rules, they could invest themselves wholeheartedly into the setting and gameplay.  Also, this would help prevent the creation of such naive and broken gaming mechanics seen in a majority or RPGs.

Example: Wizards grants an OGL for their D20 systems, some of the monsters, but not the settings. Why? Because the system doesn't matter. The settings with all the juicy information, color and background are what makes the game. On the other hand, their Magic card game is one that will never, ever have an OGL. Wizards would die if that system fell into the hands of others, simply because that card system is the money-maker. I believe they have service-marked the word "tap" to indicate a 90 degree rotation of a card.

The system doesn't matter to the intellectual property, but it does matter when it comes to gameplay, and that truly is what is being sold.

I suggest that you first publish an adventure based on the D20 OGL and make it a hit. That would give you a lot of experience working within an OGL and also how to take advantage of an existing system.

Outside of getting some painful experience using a Framework that I and others cringe at the thought of using, I feel there is absolutely no point in making my own RPG on top of d20.  My goal is to make a competent Gaming Framework, not suffer through the drivel WotC produced.

[Charles Wilcox]

I like your idea of a framework. I created one that focuses on a hybrid or RPG/Wargaming, called SkirMASH! (current working title).

The idea is that the game supplies the underlying mechanics to create and do just about anyting, on the tabletop with miniatures. The game allows the individual to fill-in a lot of the details, offering a non-obtrusive game engine.

Thanks.

Creating an all-inclusive engine can be difficut. There are language issues, scope issues, and at the end of the day, you have to tailor the engine to some extent to fit neatly into a box, otherwise you are doomed to fail.

I suppose early experiments in a gaming framework would would need to be tailored, but I truly believe you could eventually create a system that is robust.

[tj333]

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.

[joepub]

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 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.

[Danny_K]

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. 

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.