First I want to remark on what an amazing creative atmosphere exists here at the forge.

This is a call for developers who would like to work closely on creating a completely open, modular gaming system that delivers on the promises it makes.

I have been gaming the fair majority of my years, and I am also deeply supportive of the Open Source Software Movement and other Gift Economic Initiatives. I am always in search of projects to sink my teeth into, and when I recently got the itch to look more closely at open source gaming I realized that aside from a few brilliant but limited games released into the public domain, there wasn't really so much going on as I would expect given our propensity as gamers to A. Work in teams, and B. write our own rules. There were of course some utterly brilliant systems out there like Fate and others, but I felt they did not go far enough in their openness. Ultimately no matter how hard I looked (and I could be missing something) I didn't see anything that was really truly successful that was as open and free as what open source software initatives had accomplished. So all of this spurred me into action, and I created for myself a new gaming organization, I say org rather than company because of what follows. Essentially I want to create Open Source Games, and the central pillar of my hopes in this arena are drawn from the system I'm currently designing. It's called CORE, and it's meant to be a modular, generic roleplaying system with a narrtivist bent but still possessing enough systems and options to satisfy other styles of play. I also want to publish several settings with the game so that the game can be played with a community of others playing the same settings if that's what you want.

Essentially what I want to create is a truly open, not for profit organization that emulates the successes of open source software by creating a strong, well developed central system with rules that can be tailored to different styles of play and mechanics that encourage dramatic stories and good roleplaying, most of all I want all the material and content to be totally free as in beer and as in speech.

I want it to be open to the community to develop as well, so that the success compounds as more and more material is written. I would like to create a sort of publishing system by which we could have house rules where rules that were written and published went, and a canon systems and settings section, where the community would be capable of voting rules or setting material they liked from house rules into the canon system. That way we could foster development, encourage people to try and really create good systems, and keep storytellers from having to wade through hours of house rules to find what they want.

Currently I'm still working on bolting down the core system and getting some polished settings going, but I have a playtes session being run by some fellows of mine. And I've realized that it would be really helpful to have some solid help in the form of co-developers, so if you have a chance and this sounds like the sort of project you'd like to help with, contact me at:

Justin Nichol
blackflaggames@gmail.com

For those interested, here's a short sampling of what I've wirtten so far, I'd really appreciate any constructive comments people might have, thanks.

Descriptors

Descriptors are used in CORE in place of numbers to reduce the need for expansive modeling systems. For example, if a person tried to push a boulder, and a tank attempted the same task, a system based purely in numbers would demand a highly modeled system of strength beyond human limits to determine how easily the tank could move the boulder. In Core, everything is context, the humans Power ability could be Exceptional for a human, while the tanks Ability was only average for a tank, but the task for a human would be of an incredible difficulty while it would be only an average difficulty for the tank, and relatively routine. Descriptors are used to describe both the numbers involved in making Ability checks and determining Talent Thresholds, and also as a method of describing the difficulty of a task, though the descriptors work differently for each. The descriptors and their effects are as follows for Talent Thresholds and Abilities.

Low     -1
Meager             0
Average           +1
Intermediate +2
Exceptional +3
Extraordinary         +4

For an ability, the descriptor bonus determines the number of automatic successes a character has for a roll involving that ability.

Example: Johnny Black is attempting to pick a lock. He has an Average Security ability, and receives one automatic success.

Talent descriptors are used to determine your success threshold; this is figured by adding your descriptor bonus to a base of 1. When rolling for successes, each die that rolls under your threshold is a success. A Talent level of low indicates the character is handicapped in that area and unable to perform challenging tasks involving that talent without using Elements

Example:  To determine his threshold Johnny simply adds the Talent descriptor bonus to 1. Johnny Black must make a Wits based Security check to pick the lock. His Wits talent is Intermediate, which provides a +2 bonus, resulting in a threshold of 3.

Difficulties also have descriptors but they do not consult the chart above. Instead each level of difficulty is one success that is necessary to complete the task starting at 0. Following is a quick list of the number of successes necessary to succeed at different difficulties. The Low difficulty descriptor exists for those with a low ability element (from using a skill untrained), and requires one success from -1 successes to achieve.

Low 0
Meager       1
Average       2
Intermediate     3
Exceptional     4
Extraordinary     5
Incredible            6
Legendary     7
Impossible     8

Example: The storyteller decides that the difficulty to pick the lock is average, requiring two successes.

Checks in CORE

To make a check, first the Storyteller must state the ability and talent to be rolled, and set a difficulty for the task. Once the difficulty is set, a player may then compare the successes automatically granted by their ability level against the number of successes needed. If the character possess as many or more successes as the difficulty, the character may spend a Style Point to succeed automatically so long as the roll is uncontested. This is called a Dramatic Success and is one of the ways CORE reduces the number of rolls in games. If the check is not resolved with a dramatic success, proceed as follows:

Note the number of automatic successes granted by your ability level

Determine the threshold for the talent being checked.

Roll 3D6, each die that rolls under your threshold is a success, each 6 removes a success.

Add your rolled successes to your automatic successes to determine if you succeed.

Example: Johnny Blacks player is still trying to determine if he can successfully pick the lock. The aforementioned difficulty for the task is Average, which requires two successes. Johnny Blacks Average skill level allows him to spend a Style Point to automatically pick the lock. Johnny's just that damn good and scores a dramatic success. Once inside, an ear splitting alarm sounds. The lock was easy enough but now Johnny Black has to disarm an alarm system. His storyteller determines that this is an Exceptional Difficulty task. Johnny Blacks player checks his security skill again and remembers that he receives one automatic success, but this is not nearly enough for a Dramatic Success as an Exceptional Difficulty requires four successes. Johnny's storyteller reminds him that this task requires a Wits based Security check, so Johnny's player first determines his threshold. Johnny's Wits talent is Intermediate, giving him a threshold of 3. Johnny rolls 3 dice, and rolls a 2, a 2 and a 4 for two successes. Johnny Black has failed in disarming the alarm but may be able to call on certain Cinematics if he has them to his increase his threshold and narrowly succeed using style and dramatic play (see style points)

Contested Checks

There are two types of contested checks, Passive and Active. Passive checks are when a character is making a roll against another characters passive skill. For instance if a character were attempting to strike another character, they would roll against the descriptor of the characters Defense ability. A character with a High Melee ability attacking someone with a High Defense ability would need to score two successes to succeed.

Active checks are when a contested roll is made and both contestants are rolling against one another to score more successes. Ties can be resolved through re-rolls or by bidding Style Points to determine who ultimately succeeds at the task.

Talents:

Physique: Used for checks involving physical strength or a characters ability to sustain damage and fatigue

Coordination: Used for checks involving motors skills, checks requiring agility or speed, and for checks involving aim or grace.

Presence: Used for checks involving charisma, intimidation, influence over the mise-en-scene, and in most Power Elements such as Magic and Psionics.

Wits: Used for checks involving problem solving, reasoning, perception and reaction to stimuli and danger.

Style: Used for checks involving creativity, improvisation, and dramatic actions.

Style Points- Style points are an important standard assembly that allow characters to perform Cinematic Actions or Cinematics, and to increase their likelihood of succeeding at dramatic checks.

Style points may be used to do the following:

To score dramatic successes when the characters ability level is high enough to succeed automatically. (1 Point)

To fuel cinematics (Variable points – See Cinematics)

To remove a single 6 from a roll. (1 point)

To achieve in-game effects that enhance drama (knowing a piece of information about an event, finding a clue at the right moment) (Variable points- Determined by Player and Storyteller)

Cinematics- Cinematics are another way CORE strives to reduce die rolls and heighten drama. They are special abilities and stunts that a character can perform that affect the game mechanics of a situation, affect descriptors, allow a character to do something they cannot normally do with an ability check or provide the character a dramatic action that can be performed without a roll. For instance, a character might have the Push Your Limit Cinematic allowing them to increase the threshold of a talent for one ability roll.

Elements- Elements are parts of a characters personality and history, which affect the way they interact with the story. They can be anything from one-word adjectives to short descriptions. When a mise-en-scene is set by the storyteller and a characters elements logically relates to it or if a situation is somehow appropriate, they can call on positive Elements to gain temporary benefits, or can call on Negative Elements instead and if played well or overcome, they can recover Style Points or receive extra rewards for strong play after the story is finished. Storytellers can also play on character Elements if the player does not, but the player does not receive any benefit for playing the negative effects of a character element if the Storyteller puts it in play. Objects and places can also have elements.

Mise-En-Scene- The Mise-En-Scene is a sort of element that can be applied by the storyteller to a particular scene. Not all scenes have a Mise-En-Scene, but those that do can affect a characters ability checks or can invoke a characters Elements. Say the scene involved a group of soldiers pinned behind a bunker, awaiting reinforcements, being peppered with enemy fire. The storyteller might declare the Mise-En-Scene to be Overwhelming. For one character the storyteller might declare a penalty to all Wits based skill checks because he is rattled. Yet another with the Element “Grace Under Fire” might instead be allowed to spend Style Points to raise his abilities and lay down cover fire, hoping to protect his buddies until reinforcements arrive. And yet another character who recently took the Element “Low Breaking Point” might press his back to the bunker, shell shocked, staring at a picture of his girlfriend back home and sobbing. All are appropriate and are determined by both the storyteller and player suggestions. Mise-En-Scene is meant to allow players to role-play their character elements and to provide drama to scene, and should not be applied constantly or inappropriately if they are unnecessary.

I've been inspired by a lot of systems (Fate, PDQ, and the discussions here) and I'm sure it can be seen in the sort of mechanics I like and have designed, please let me know what you think. And Please Please Please contact me if you'd be interested in helping to refine and develop systems and settings

It looks like you added some cool stuff to Fate and a few other systems. Unfortunatly, your system is a bit more bogged down than the others as a result. I would suggest you take a second look at such things as a universal trait ladder and your pre-set Talents.

yea, Fate and Fudge did influence me some but there are several marked differences, it's certainly not an addendum to Fudge. So far I'm not really worried with the system being bogged down, it runs pretty smooth right now, but it's always good to keep a watchful eye. Thanks for the advice, I'll take it into consideration.

The reason it hasn't gotten bogged down with having to determine thresholds etc., is that you only really have to check once, and unless you do something special they stay the same. One optional rule that will be available for really streamlined play is doing away with Talents and having all thresholds be 2 or 3.

Thanks again for the comment.

Justin wrote: Descriptors are used in CORE in place of numbers to reduce the need for expansive modeling systems.

Yea I've been discussing that with other people. Primarily the reason for the descriptors is for flavor and for use in the contextual declaration of difficulties. I'll agree tha I have not implemented it well enough, but I like descriptor based games, but I didn't want it to be like in fudge where you can go excessively beyond your level of ability. So I wanted you to have to score one success on your roll to reach your level of ability, which for the average talent means that you are about as likely to succeed on a task thats at your ability level as fail.

Also I wanted there to be a way for a giant to have an average lifting ability, and a human have the same lifting ability but in context the giant would have a lower difficulty because well, what is average for a giant is not average for a human. That was my rationale for the descriptors, but I agree that they're not fundamental enough to the system, and I'd like to remedy that. That's why I want co-developers, so I can bounce ideas, refine the system and tighten things up. I'm actually pretty happy with how it's run in playtest sessions. People who have no stake in the games development have remarked that the playtest sessions are some of the best gaming they've had, and I think that's because of the encouragement the system gives to drama in roleplaying.

So any suggestions on how to make the descriptors more fundamental to the system, I would nix them, but one, it seems impersonal to just have a 0 Riding Ability, and also it helps to have descriptors for the contextual difficulty setting.

But I wanted to clear up is that although there are different functions for the descriptors, there are not different numerical values. Only in difficulty does it stray from the -1 through +4 scale, and even then it's only the normal scale +1 success necessary. Which I could probably make more clear.

Thanks again.

Hi

I think that it is an interesting thing that you are trying to do here. I, too, is an Open Source freak, and I have had an similar idea once. But, unfortunately, I think it will be hard for you to find people that want to help, mostly because most people that want to design games have there own system they are working on, and they do not feel they have time to help with an other system they may not completely agree with.

This is not to discourage you - I hope you find some people that want to help you - but you should not be surprised if no one contacts you. If this happen I have an advise for you: Go forward with the idea anyway. Make a website where you develop the game (a wiki will probably be a good choice), make an cool example setting to show how that the system can be used in interesting ways, and maybe get some artwork (if you ask some of the amateur artist on, for instance, deviantart.com, they may allow you to use some of their work for free if you give them proper credit). And when people see that you take this very seriously they will be more willing to help you.

I have one question for you. What do you exactly mean by Open Source game? What kind license is needed for it to be an Open Source game? For instance, the system from Conspiracy of Shadows is under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License, is that good enough?

And by the way, if you want feedback on the system, you should probably post it in the First Thought forum.

- Anders

Thanks for the encouragement. It's good to see another supporter of Open Source. I mean it's been said before, Open Source RPGs are kind of a funny notion because game systems aren't proprietary and while a company can keep someone from posting their written material, they cant keep people from using their numbers. What is an important concept with Open Source gaming is a community of gamers freely developing games for one another. I think certain criteria have to be met for a game to be truly open.

- All content should be free, not just an SRD, but all of it. Open Source Software writers don't give you demos of non-proprietary code, they give the whole shebang. Printed copies and game accessories such as professionally printed books, cards or cast game pieces can be sold to support the organizations or companies involved but no content should be exclusive.

- For such games to be truly successful they have to feed on the same sorts of phenomena as open source software, most notably, community participation. The whole reason I wanted to create a totally free universal system was so that it could foster many settings being created and gamers all being able to contribute to it. With game companies having so many paid brains working on games, the only way to create the same amount and quality of content is to have a lot of community involvement.

- There can't be any stipulation on whether a person can make derivative works, although I agree with insisting derivative works also be open even if they are commercially sold.

That CC license works fine for releasing an Open RPG, so long as the games content is given freely as aforementioned. It's more than just the license I think that determines if it's open, its what amount of content is included. Like I mentioned there are several games that have been released free or under cc or gfdl licenses, but I don't think any of them have really gotten down the sophistication, community involvement and scope of what I'm attempting. Which is why I'm trying to get co-developers, because I don't know that I can achieve everything I want in a bubble.

But yea, I'll definitely keep working on the system, I'll be purchasing a domain soon for the gaming organization, and I'm currently designing page layouts and readying myself to attempt a Beta PDF, that's what I actually study is art and graphics technology, and I'll soon be working in a print shop. I also intend to hold more public playtest sessions at local game stores. I know it's a bit silly to ask for co-developers on a game designers forum, everyone's here to work on their own games. But I thought, this is the best place to find people who are capable of refining systems and not just making stuff up, and also I thought maybe I could find some people in between projects or who were frustrated with their own projects and wanted to help build something lasting and lend their own ideas to the system. I don't necessarily expect to find anyone but I had to try, and I might as well fish where the best are swimming. I'm not being insincere, there really is a lot of raw talent pooled in these forums.

So thanks again for the comment. My primary purpose was to find developers, I should probably repost my system in first thoughts, but I figured kill two birds with one stone, and give people a glimpse of what Im trying to work with before they sign on to help develop.

So any suggestions on how to make the descriptors more fundamental to the system, I would nix them, but one, it seems impersonal to just have a 0 Riding Ability, and also it helps to have descriptors for the contextual difficulty setting.

But I wanted to clear up is that although there are different functions for the descriptors, there are not different numerical values. Only in difficulty does it stray from the -1 through +4 scale, and even then it's only the normal scale +1 success necessary. Which I could probably make more clear.

Anders wrote: But, unfortunately, I think it will be hard for you to find people that want to help, mostly because most people that want to design games have there own system they are working on, and they do not feel they have time to help with an other system they may not completely agree with.

This is not to discourage you - I hope you find some people that want to help you - but you should not be surprised if no one contacts you. If this happen I have an advise for you: Go forward with the idea anyway.

Make a website where you develop the game (a wiki will probably be a good choice), make an cool example setting to show how that the system can be used in interesting ways, and maybe get some artwork (if you ask some of the amateur artist on, for instance, deviantart.com, they may allow you to use some of their work for free if you give them proper credit). And when people see that you take this very seriously they will be more willing to help you.

What do you exactly mean by Open Source game? What kind license is needed for it to be an Open Source game? For instance, the system from Conspiracy of Shadows is under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License, is that good enough?

Anders wrote:
Hi

This is not to discourage you - I hope you find some people that want to help you - but you should not be surprised if no one contacts you. If this happen I have an advise for you: Go forward with the idea anyway. Make a website where you develop the game (a wiki will probably be a good choice), make an cool example setting to show how that the system can be used in interesting ways, and maybe get some artwork (if you ask some of the amateur artist on, for instance, deviantart.com, they may allow you to use some of their work for free if you give them proper credit). And when people see that you take this very seriously they will be more willing to help you.

I have one question for you. What do you exactly mean by Open Source game? What kind license is needed for it to be an Open Source game? For instance, the system from Conspiracy of Shadows is under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License, is that good enough?

I understand what you're all saying. As far as different syles of play, I think that my game has a decidedly narrativist bent in that it suggests that the Core of all story is drama and at the heart of an RPG is Storytelling. But, and maybe I'm oversimplifying things, it seems to me like you can certainly hinder or foster certain styles of play, but almost any system other than the most rules lite stuff out there can basically be played with any of the three play agendas. I CAN play Hero system as a narrativist, it just wouldn't be advised because the mechanics would constantly get in the way of telling the story in a way that has emotional impact. All I want to do is create a game system that encourages fun, interesting stories and play, and that is modular, crunchy and developed enough to satisfy most styles of play. I'm not trying to make a holy grail, just trying to fill a hole that's not really filled because the OGL is a joke in my eyes.

I can certainly understand your more than one chef in the kitchen analogy (although many professional kitchens have many chefs), but some of your other statements directly interfere with this, because like you said I do not have the resources and staff to create an incredibly well supported product line by myself, at some point I will need other people. What I was trying to do was take the central stuff I have been working with and get people to help flesh it out, help write systems and settings etc. That obviously isn't going to happen here, but I'm working on finishing a BETA PDF of the system and already have a website up with a domain and I'm planning to release it for playtesting and critique when I am finally finished. I am still thoroughly convinced that if I am going to be able to succeed on any level with this game, a community will have to develop around the game, writing setting information, playtesting and generally hammering it all into shape.

As for giving it all away, I have no other reason to do this but than to give it away. I don't want proprietary or closed content material, I don't respect it or copyright. I like gift economic and open source projects. And I want a game that others can play without supplements and rulebooks to buy, and I can gain from people developing the system or other systems, games software etc. for me to enjoy. But of course I'm not releasing it into the public domain, so I guess I am making some caveat, as derivative works will have to also be open etc.

As for Creative Commons, I'm already familiar with all of their licenses, but I'm probably going to license it under the GFDL (Gnu Free Documentation License) .

There was another attempt at an open-source role-playing system, called Dominion, which is archived here: http://web.archive.org/web/20060528211031/http://www.dominiongames.com/index.html

Go for it, dude. If it's innovative and fun, folks will accrue to the site's forums.

I still say make it a wiki, though, if it's really "open" and you want folks to help extend it. You will get more involvement if not every change has to go through you, to get into this PDF you are distributing. You can always lock editing of the Core, only changing it after discussion on Talk pages.

(Quick aside: Dominion is fantasy. I thought this "modular" system would be generic or, at least, genre-flexible. Oh, and the links to the rules don't work....)
David