Hmm. So, I clearly don;t have enough things to do, and thus I've been thinking of trying to design my own RPG framework? The idea being that it's kinda like GURPS, except designed to handle all sorts of radically dimorphic balance changes, levels of detail, etc, and would be totally open source. Would anyone be interested in hearing about that? XD

@Angle Yes please.

@Angle FYI, I'm working on developing a TORG/CoD crossover module myself. (Fan mechanics rather than F/OSS.)

@Angle There are, of course, a number of F/OSS pen-n-papers out there. A quick Google search reveals:

Fate/Fudge, Open d6, D6 Rulebook, Minisix, WaRP, Pathfinder, Eclipse Phase,

(None of which I've played.)

Or, this mind-boggling list: http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/freerpgs/fulllist.html

Would be curious what you think of any of these, and what your looking to accomplish that you haven't seen elsewhere.

@Angle
Also, could you expand on what you mean by "radically dimorphic balance changes"? It sounds like a core feature of what you're considering.

I have a vague idea of what you mean, but would like to better understand what you're imagining before I offer deeper comment.

@beadsland Well, for example GURPS Has several core balance assumptions - character points will be had to come by, you can't have traits that let you self improve or that pay out constant benefit, no absolute immunities or defenses, etc. These are usually good ideas, but I'd like to have guidelines in place for GM when they want to not use them. Also have guidelines for changing the length of a turn, changing mechanics or stats depending on whats important for your game, etc. Not sure these are actually cool ideas, but it would be fun to experiment with them. XD

@beadsland I was also considering trying to make it of use for video game creators, so you don;t need to roll your own system from scratch every time. Again, though, not sure thats actually a good idea.

@Angle I was pretty certain video game creators had a lot of established game engine support for their designs. At least, given how many online games seem to follow very similar models.

@beadsland From a programming perspective, maybe. From a rules standpoint? I don't really think so. :/

@Angle @beadsland can confirm that gameplay code is under-engineered in most instances because it gets thrown out too quickly to matter. the reusable parts of game engines focus mostly on how to display scenes or portray living characters. Interactions and rules are shoved on top of that per-game. cheap to build, expensive to polish.

w/r to new game rules, it's the driving motivation/vision and feedback loops to judge their success with that are the most challenging parts.

@Triplefox @Angle So it's just down to convention that so many games look so very similar in underlying structure?

@beadsland @Triplefox That and the fact that there are only so many ways to do the same thing for the same reason.

@Angle @Triplefox Ah, but that's just it. There aren't only so many ways to do different things for different reason.

@beadsland @Triplefox ...No? But my point is that there isn't any video game analog of GURPS - a large body of rules balanced and refined by many people over a period of years, which you can plug together to make the kind of experience you want. Like, I'm thinking of building an X-Com type game, right? There no library for dealing with accurately representing cover, melee attacks, ranged attacks, movement, injury, etc. That all has to be rolled by scratch every game. :/

@Angle @Triplefox A readily re-configurable model for representing melee and ranged combat would be a major coup all in itself, leave alone providing for all the systems typical to a tabletop RPG.

Also (and here I'm going to take a somewhat opposite position to the one I took a few toots ago), just because you *can* configure a combat system doesn't mean it will even approach being balanced.

Torg, for instance, was notorious for what was called the "glass-jawed ninja" problem.

@beadsland @Triplefox I mean, yeah, but that's what playtesting is for. So you can figure out that "Okay, giving the orcs super high strength and high quality steel weapons isn't a very balanced combination. Maybe give them medium quality steel or high quality Iron, instead...?"

@Angle @Triplefox Yes. But do you see how you're already locking in the representation model for equipment?

@beadsland @Triplefox What, with material and quality? Yeah, thats a good point I guess. I still think a system that was strong enough to be useful, flexible enough to be braodly applicable, and light enough to be easy to work with would still be possible. I mean, I think GURPS would work just fine for most needs already. :/

@Angle @Triplefox Personally, I always found GURPS somehow too flexible as a platform for gameplay, although again I think its an amazing feat of design.

It's the poet in me, I think. Limitations provide form. Too much freedom can translate to goop. I think we've got forms in game design that need a good funeral they've been so overused, but form, as such, still matters.

GURPS doesn't seem to have enough form for my liking.

@beadsland @Triplefox It relies on the GM and players to provide form. Which works for some people, but not others. :/

@Angle Which is fine, but my sense was that those drawn to the game were those who were looking for something goopier than I care for (the six books to create a character scenario).

i.e., there seemed to be a self-selection bias that would mitigate against the GM & players being the sort inclined to providing a very compelling form. As you say, YMMV.

Consider Shadowrun, for instance. A group of GURPS players could achieve a cyberfantasy RPG as immersive, but are they likely to?

@beadsland Like, I've found a pretty good compromise is to play goal-oriented problem solver character, because that way my natural inclinations tend to fit the characters pretty well. I'm still not very good at playing them immersively in character, though. Maybe I should outright play inhuman A.I.s or whatever. XD