This thread is a split from [Avalanche] How design influences many aspects... and some questions

I think my product, as being setting/plot oriented, is not GNS related, so I think I'm entitled to use more than one system to represent it.
This thread is not about my design, nor the impact of adding a system on it beside character sheets, nor the purpose of my project.

The rules dilemma
I really think I need to provide systems for representation of my setting/plot, as it is intended to be played. That said, I don't intend to design one myself.
So, the idea would be to propose three different systems, each emblematic of the GNS. I'm looking for systems that are emblematic, but still, have a licence that would permit me to use them quite easily. Any idea ? Of course, I'm not talking about personal preferences, but icons.
My setting is quite commun, heroic fantasy. I think that some systems wouldn't work, like those for science fiction or written for a specific setting (like MLWM).

The d20 problematic
I don't like d20. I don't design a d20 product. I don't want to encourage playing my scenario with d20. This is also one of the main reason, I think, I need to provide at least, another system, if I'm going to propose d20.
For me, the problematic with d20 is purely publishing and marketing. There is a big market of those players. They still play prewritten scenarios, like living campaing, even thougth there are of poor quality. I want to be able to include them, without excluding the other players.
Providing only d20 would be an error. But, I have to face it, I may need d20 to bring food on the table.

GNS-emblematic free systems? Easy.

Gamism - D&D, of course. Or in your case more likely, "The world's most popular fantasy adventuring system", depending on whether you're including rules content or not.

Simulationism - I suggest Fudge, also available under OGL. Apparently the new Runequest will be under OGL also, so that's another one.

Narrativism - The Shadow of Yesterday, of course! Available under the CC noncommercial licence, but I'm pretty sure Clinton might give you a special commercial licence if you ask nicely and aren't printing the actual system, only your own implementations.

Note that much depends on what kind of content you're planning to include for the games in question. If you're just planning to put in a chapter of "Rules system suggestions" where you list some systems that might go nicely, you don't need any licences. This is true to a degree even if you choose to include a paragraph or two of general suggestions about how to apply the given system. If your plans are along these lines, you don't have to care one way or another about whether the system you're using is free.

The limit of fair use is pretty vague, however, so if you're going to include rules content (character classes, special rules exceptions), it's probably a good idea to get permission. This is also the case if you're planning to advertise your rules compatibility on the front cover; while the latter is legal, licence or not, you might draw lawsuits, and it seems that's something Americans don't like to do.

If, however, you're not afraid of potential legal posturing, I think you'll be well on the better side of the law as long as you don't reprint any content from copyrighted works, what ever system you're using. The legal precedent is quite clear in that writing complementary content for rules systems isn't copyright infringement, as proved by the widespread practice in the ''70s and similar cases for the automobile and computer industry. If you target a high-profile company you'll probably draw threats, insofar as I understand anything about the American way to handle things, but the law should back up your right to write material for D&D or Storyteller system or whatever.

--

The above being said, I'd like to add that it's probably a fool's errand to try to write adventuring material for different creative agendas of GNS, at least if you're not intimately familiar with the theory. Setting prose is possible (because it doesn't impact GNS), but adventure plots or whatever practical material you're thinking of would have to be rebuilt from ground up for the different agendas. This doesn't, of course, mean that it's a bad idea to publish a multi-system sourcebook.

Not to be a pest, but I think you still miss the point I was making when I argued for no System (on the Indie Design Forum). I meant NO system: don't include one, OGL or not. I think my publishing- and competition-related objections were quite valid (and remain uncountered, yes...?).

I have always advised you to write so that each Agenda can find applicable content. You don't NEED a System to present a Setting and Situation: study The Big Model; its "Venn diagram" of dependancies within a game's elements is correct.

The only things you might need to quantify (and only for GAM/SIM-oriented play--which is, I think, what you play and is, thus, the reason I think you feel compelled to put numbers to NPCs) are relative effectiveness of NPCs/monsters as compared to the common man and the characters. That could be all textual: "General Grumuth is the most feared warrior in the land, matched by no one." or "His troops, however, can barely wield the farming implements they've brought to the battle."

Clearly, the General in the above is equal to (or greater than) the highest powered characters, while his troops could be quantified with whatever the players' System uses as a "normal" or "baseline" or "Level 0" fighter.

See? NO System, not a set of three "popular" Systems tacked onto your principle product (Setting and Situation).

But, as always, do what makes you happy. Just realize the issues that you embrace when you make such choices. For example, when I flip through a Setting product and see all of its characters and challenges quantified with d20, I put it down: I think d20 is flawed, I do not want to use a product that tries to write its content to suit the d20 system, and I do not buy Settings that require me to do a bunch of conversions from some arbitrary System to the one I run for table-top. (No, I don't buy a lot of Settings at all: such System-independant products are quite rare... and that's why I thought you had a niche!)

Just a warning, some advice, and encouragement that your bigger ideas of Situation timing and Setting are the real value add of your product, not ready-made d20 or Fudge characters or traps with d20 DCs all ready to go for the GM. :)
David

Pells, in order to make this thread serve your needs best, can you list the questions and information that you want to discuss in it? That way we can give you the best information we have, and stay focused on your publishing goals.

Best,
Ron

My project and the forge
I do realise that what I'm doing seems awkward compared to what other people do here. I don't think my market is on the forge, but I believe I do benefit from this site, as a way to better my product, otherwise, I wouldn't be here. For me, the forge is food for thougth.

Design and publishing
In the context of my project, the two were thougth out together. They are closely linked. It is very important to see one in perspective of the other, because the way I want to publish is, I think, innovative. The way I intend to publish is very important for this conversation.
I plan on publishing my product thru a website, selling it on a monthly based subscription. My goal is to create a value added service. I won't go into details here, leaving this to the purpose of a future thread, when I'm near publishing.

What I'm selling
I'm selling content, not rules. I'm selling a moving setting, a multiplot adventure, based on a calendar. Something written for the rpg, a new way to create content for this hobby. That said, if my story stinks, I won't sell a single copy. This is my main trade.

Just a warning, some advice, and encouragement that your bigger ideas of Situation timing and Setting are the real value add of your product

I have always advised you to write so that each Agenda can find applicable content.

The only things you might need to quantify (and only for GAM/SIM-oriented play--which is, I think, what you play and is, thus, the reason I think you feel compelled to put numbers to NPCs) are relative effectiveness of NPCs/monsters as compared to the common man and the characters. That could be all textual: "General Grumuth is the most feared warrior in the land, matched by no one." or "His troops, however, can barely wield the farming implements they've brought to the battle."
Clearly, the General in the above is equal to (or greater than) the highest powered characters, while his troops could be quantified with whatever the players' System uses as a "normal" or "baseline" or "Level 0" fighter.

For example, when I flip through a Setting product and see all of its characters and challenges quantified with d20, I put it down: I think d20 is flawed, I do not want to use a product that tries to write its content to suit the d20 system, and I do not buy Settings that require me to do a bunch of conversions from some arbitrary System to the one I run for table-top. (No, I don't buy a lot of Settings at all: such System-independant products are quite rare... and that's why I thought you had a niche!)

Hey, nothing wrong with you project from where I'm standing. I suppose I'm not interested in that kind of thing myself (while I like "adventure supplements" very much when well done, yours seems to require too much buy-in), but if you'd use it yourself, I'm sure there's some market out there. We're all of us targeting slightly different fringe markets, and if yours is a different one, well, it's not like they don't have wallets like everybody else.

And for the record, I think you're 100% right about the codependency of design and publishing. When considering your product as a business, that's an excellent place to begin. My own current project is very much a brainchild of market analysis.

Anyway, that's the validation part. How do you find the systems I suggested, namely d20, Fudge and TSOY? I think those are extremely transparent (easy for users to port to other systems), well representative of different playstyles, popular and easy to write for without stumbling on legal roadblocks. The main problem I see is that d20 is difficult to write for, or at least it requires significant system expertise if you want to produce something playable. Fudge and TSOY are slightly easier in that regard. Another problem is that I have difficulty imagining adventure material that could be easily used for all of those, but that's a problem with almost any three wildly different games. Setting and situation, yes, but when you start laying down the tracks of adventure as it's commonly understood, you'll soon stumble into country where both TSOY and d20 start dragging. But I guess it's up to you to familiarize yourself with different games and figure out what kind of common content you can make for them.

If you want to access the system for a given item, the user will have to push a button system to get to it. Then, the text will disappear, leaving room for stats. The system will not be the first thing that appears to the eyes.
So, systems can be seen as option. When you subscribe, you choose which system you want to use. That is certainly one of the things you can do in HTML and not in a book. And I think I need to take as much benefit as possible from this way of publishing. As system is an option, I'd say the default one is no system.

What are the chances to sell content for the rpg without any rules (specific or not)?

I think it would be worse to put, let's say, only d20 than no system at all. Am I right?

The idea is to be able to include some players without excluding others. I am right on that assumption?

And with that, I sit back content and say, "Good on ya!" We danced a bit with diction; but in the end I think you see what I meant; and I am sure what you plan vis a vis the web-driven tools is EXCELLENT! It will be a bit of a challenge for you to provide System-specific details for each Setting component, times three or four. But the fact that it will be a "toggle" in the Setting-reading interface is clever and will work fine, I think.

And also, be sure to confirm that you need not use only OGL games. I think one of the previous posters was right, in that you can use a non-open game's system to create content for that game. You just might have to pay royalties from your sales, for each user who chooses that system as their "default" on the web site. That is something you can easily discover by simply contacting their Submission Department or the game owner's Licensing people.

Anyway, that's the validation part. How do you find the systems I suggested, namely d20, Fudge and TSOY? I think those are extremely transparent (easy for users to port to other systems), well representative of different playstyles, popular and easy to write for without stumbling on legal roadblocks. The main problem I see is that d20 is difficult to write for, or at least it requires significant system expertise if you want to produce something playable. Fudge and TSOY are slightly easier in that regard.

Another problem is that I have difficulty imagining adventure material that could be easily used for all of those, but that's a problem with almost any three wildly different games. Setting and situation, yes, but when you start laying down the tracks of adventure as it's commonly understood, you'll soon stumble into country where both TSOY and d20 start dragging.

That's what I've argued so far: a "private System" would leave you competing with The Big Boys. An alignment with one popular System could alienate possible customers. BUT aligning with MANY Systems, each serving clearly different Agendas, not only opens the door to every possible player type, but also demonstrates that you are aware of the need to make a Setting and Situation product serve all Agendas. That's a leg-up over the competition, who probably doesn't think much past "how do I come up with unique d20 classes?" when they start to hack out a Setting book.

Go for it! You've got some SERIOUS work ahead.

Call of Cthulhu : ...at some points, for some scenes, they do mention mechanic specific things like sanity roll. My question is, do you really need that ? Can't it be left to the DM ?
Climbing : ...it could be useful to have some stats on the difficulty of the task. But isn't better to have a description of the mountains and let the DM evaluate the difficulties. Do you really need to provide that (i.e. stats) ?
Traps : ...is it necessary to give all informations about traps to the DM ? Can't he play without this ? Can't he adapt it to his actual play experience ? I would gladly see two different groups go into a place where there are traps and meet all different kind of traps there.

Hello,
    First of all, I would like to say the idea of selling content in this no-system to multi-system format sounds like a great idea to me, one way or the other I hope it works out and possibly catches on with other content creators.
    Secondly, while I'm sure almost noone has heard of it, I'm willing to offer the use of my own game system in for such projects. I have only been in business for a short time, I have only one book that can be bought at the moment, and I haven't much of a talent for naming things, but I am willing to work with you on this project for free as a result if you like. I can provide both framework rules, specific rule and statistics, and any other system related materials you may need for this project if I am provided with the information related to the content I am fleshing out for you.
    While I may not be established I am willing to do a lot of the grunt work for filling out a section for my system in your project, and I wouldn't charge you for it, just so long as you make sure to note where it came from somewhere in the project. If you, or anyone else who reads this, would be interested you may contact me at business@myrpgstore.com. I will get back to you as soon as the message is recieved.
    Currently the rules for my system are able to handle Fantasy, Space Science Fiction, and Cybernetics/Human Augmentation settings, I just haven't recieved copyright notification for all of the books that I have finished quite yet. My fantasy setting book is out in print right now though.
    On a non slightly self-serving note, I would second the oppinion that Fudge and GURPS would be a good systems to support if you can. Also, I don't know what other people think about it, but I kind of like the Paladium RPG system, even though it can take a really long time to write down all of the character statistics.

Czar Fnord wrote: Not to be a pest, but I think you still miss the point I was making when I argued for no System (on the Indie Design Forum). I meant NO system: don't include one, OGL or not. I think my publishing- and competition-related objections were quite valid (and remain uncountered, yes...?).

This adventure can be played using the rules for the most popular fantasy RPG, the most popular vampire RPG, or this rather neato-keen RPG designed by some chap who uses the Sumerian name for Tiamat for his nom-de-internet

You see? Not all "minor" story elements need be, for all Agendas. And your web sites ability to be system-toggled makes that the USER'S choice, rather than yours. So long as you provide them the system quantifiers when it's appropriate to the overall story.

Secondly, while I'm sure almost noone has heard of it, I'm willing to offer the use of my own game system in for such projects. I have only been in business for a short time, I have only one book that can be bought at the moment, and I haven't much of a talent for naming things, but I am willing to work with you on this project for free as a result if you like. I can provide both framework rules, specific rule and statistics, and any other system related materials you may need for this project if I am provided with the information related to the content I am fleshing out for you

That's all a game system is, a description of how things work in a game. It can be very simple, it can be very complicated. A system can be designed that allows for most any style or feel of play. Or a system can be designed for a specific style or feel. You get right down to it, Ars Magica does a damn fine job of modelling faculty life at a major American university.

Honestly, if you're not going to include a system with your setting, you might as well turn it into a story and publish it as such.

But use what you feel comfortable with, otherwise your product is going to stink.

Pell, sounds to me like you're looking for collaborators. Unfortunately, even when you and your ocllaborators agree on what's to be done, there will still be disagreements on how it's to be done.

For instance: I come up with an idea for a game to be called Redemption. In Redemption you play an orc. who has decided he no longer wishes to act like a stereotypical orc. However, if he stops acting like an orc, he stops being an orc. He starts acting like a human instead, he becomes a human. He starts acting like an elf, he becomes an elf. The very act of redempttion changes what he is.

So I come up with thiis idea of how it all works, and tons of background detail, but the mechanics stay out of reach. On the spur of the moment I ask Ron Edwards if he'd like to try his hand at Redemption's, and he agrees. But his mechanics bring out a few questions I hadn't considered before. Such as... What does it mean to be an orc? What does it mean to become a human? Is it possible to behave as an elf and not be an elf? Are those who became dwarfs by taking up dwarfen behavior accepted as true dwarfs? Is it even possible to actually change, and is the change (real or ersatz) easy or hard?

And let's say John Wick and/or Jared Sorenson get involved What changes would they bring to Redemption?

In short, bringing in others into a project can change it in ways you could never dream of.

To be honest here, the best way to keep your project closest to your vision is to do the mechanics themselves. Or be prepared to see your vision changed in very substantial ways.

Alan, I agree with you, but not in the context of my project.

Pell, sounds to me like you're looking for collaborators. Unfortunately, even when you and your ocllaborators agree on what's to be done, there will still be disagreements on how it's to be done.

For instance: I come up with an idea for a game to be called Redemption. In Redemption you play an orc.

And let's say John Wick and/or Jared Sorenson get involved What changes would they bring to Redemption?

In short, bringing in others into a project can change it in ways you could never dream of.

Pells,
Not sure if it fits in to what you are looking for in a system, but I have to plug my EABA open-supplement system. Anyone can publish anything they want for the system with nothing more than inclusion of the license doc, and the system falls into the simulationist camp with heroic play options. You can get more details from www.btrc.net, or email me privately for details.

Greg Porter
BTRC games