I want to make a dnd style game that is open for development by anyone.
using a wiki as a base for development
[hr]

I've had the idea floating around in my head for a while.

I would make a framework for characters, equipment and such
From there people could sling together their own situation resolution systems and reward mechanisms.
from combat to politics, and beyond on top of it.

I'd make a framework for magic, and people could build their own magic systems on top of that using the same base pieces,
allowing the different magic systems to interact.

subsystems could also be made to existing systems- commonly used items could have an item creation subsystem.
Because it is a wiki, old items could then be standardized to conform to the creation system.

I'm looking for the following feedback:

would working on such a idea interest you, or does the idea of having a defined base seem too rigid?

ways it could go wrong other than those i've already thought up:

• cohesion breakdowns- dilution of the simulationist agenda
• flooded crappy content-
• user overwhelming- uncertainty about what to use/include in their game.
• Over complication

Are you suggesting a Wiki which becomes a living, breathing game put together through the contributions of whoever wishes to contribute,

or,

are you suggesting a game which hands the reader the very basics in stone and then tools with which to build upon those basics to flesh out a full-fledged game?

Or am I getting it wrong completely?

It's not an 'or'-  It's an 'and'
[hr]

The living breathing game will have can be used to spawn the second in the following way:
The living breathing game will have lots of different systems to resolve a given situation.

Suppose a person has their own way they like to do combat, that they think is the best.
They can make and contribute a combat system that is to their liking, and it will become another option,
That can be improved upon and fleshed out by anyone.
Popular options will be expanded on in depth, and rise to the top in popularity creating 3-4 standard systems for a given situation.

Unpopular options can be set by the wayside and used only by their creators.

When you begin a campaign you would need to specify which system or systems you are using.
(I want to use this combat system during tavern brawls and this one during dungeon crawling, and these magic systems in my campaign)

I'll just add this from experience...experience in comics, in corporate business and in a few other endeavours.

Development by committee doesn't work.

Good luck to you if you can get it to work, I've seen many people try, and they always strive for the same benefits...
- reduced workload spread out among many people.
- an instant community of people working to the same goal.
- the sum of a community is greater than its parts.

Invariably, it just ends up in bickering due to the concept that "you can't please all of the people all of the time". A communal effort like this will often end up with most of the participants not liking some particular aspect that has been integrated by the majority. Everyone will end up with their pet peeves, and the community will crumble.

A good project seems to need one or two visionaries to lead it toward fruition. If the drive comes from one person the result usually ends up very linear and focused, if it comes from two people the result seems to have more diversity and depth (but at the loss of certain personal touches, unless the two developers think on a really similar wavelength). More than one or two people and the core visionary chaos starts to creep in. Others can definitely assist in the process, but they should come into the project knowing whose vision is being followed.

To avoid this post getting too theoretical, I'll offer a case to back my theory. Hollywood.

There are movies where a single director pushes their vision. The director might also be a producer, and could have even contributed to writing the story. If they've got the money, the talent and the passion to fulfill their project they can produce amazing movies that are both popular and critical successes. Take for example "The Dark Knight" under Christopher Nolan's vision, or "Iron Man" under Jon Favreau, both directors took a hands-on approach to as much of the process as they could, each producing one of the biggest blockbusters of this year (staying true to genre and avoiding the pitfalls of committee design through strong leadership). Take as an opposite example, the latter movies of the last Batman franchise "Batman Forever", "Batman and Robin"...the same basic subject matter, but vastly inferior movies because too many producers wanted certain elements in the movies, other people wanted core creative input, and the director was stuck trying to choose the best of the elements he was given.

There are plenty of similar stories along these lines when it comes to the architecture of certain buildings (where a committee design has been knocked to the ground a decade or two later while the designs of a lone visionary have effectively become the new wonders of the world).

I'm sure people will be able to put forward their own stories which completely go against the concepts I've raised in this post, but I always find that one persons drive is a far more effective medium than trying to struggle with the conflicting drives of many.

Don't get me wrong...

It seems to be an interesting idea to have a mix-and-match modular roleplaying system, allowing players to choose the elements that best fit their style of play. But with too many options, the game will probably end up as an incoherent mess, and new players will struggle to pick and choose from the options available. Especially if five different authors claim their their combat system is the "most realistic" or simply "the best".

At the very least, I'd focus on the second option provided by Dementia Games. This gives you the focal drive, and lets others contribute. You can then pick and choose the elements you think are the best provided by outside sources, and make them canon; while allowing the other ideas to exist as unofficial variants. A wiki would have no trouble doing this.

Just my thoughts...

V

I wanted to point you at a website where they've done some similar things.  It's a branch off of the whole internet subculture, so be warned, there's swearing, racism and goatsee type stuff on some of the main pages.  You should be safe as long as you go to the page I'm linking you to, and the "homebrews."
http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/homebrew.html

- an instant community of people working to the same goal.

So here is the idea drawn up in visual form.

[img]http://geist.wikidot.com/local--files/start/system7-design-v1.1.jpg[/img]

Systems would have stat block that is created from the base stats,
either distilling them to get something less complicated,
or splitting them to get something more complicated as they wish.

They then do something with them, resolving some issue with them and such.
temporarily effecting base and system stats
and long term leading to growth in effectiveness in that situation's stats

and the long term growth will eventually affect the base stats