@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 Insofar as the engine provides for specific models of how characters, adversaries, and equipment are represented, how events in play are represented (and what sorts of events are capable of being represented), and what dimensions of play the player does and doesn't have freedom within, yeah, I think the engines necessarily lock a lot of rule meta-structure in.

Not much of a gamer mind you, but as a programmer, don't see how this wouldn't be the case.

@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.

@Triplefox @Angle s/reason/reasons/.

@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 Mmm, maybe? Personally i like it cause it has a broad selection of fairly realistic, comprehensive, and detailed rules for almost any situation. On the other hand, I'm not very good at actually roleplaying (playing in character), so even when playing D&D or Shadowrun or whatever, I don't really tend to get anything that immersive. :/

@Angle Yes. Realism is often raised in favor of GURPS vs. other game systems.

Sure, you've got a superpowered mystical alien going up against a ninja-mage armed with something freakishly similar to the voom voom melee weapons of a popular space opera, but the mechanics of the rules allow you to represent all of this with a degree of realism that other systems just can't match.

Which is undoubtedly true. Still would rather play out the same scenario in Marvel Super Heroes RPG.

@beadsland What does marvel supers bring to the table? Immersion? :P

@Angle Two things.

First, the mechanics are purposely *not* realistic, but not realistic in a way that aligns well (even campily) with the spirit of the four-color Silver Age comics universe.

Second, there is a metaphysics and setting with a deep history that provides (again, unrealistic) justification for why and how the two adversaries described would even be on the same planet, let alone matched up in a life-or-death struggle.

@beadsland Mmm, yeah. Interestingly enough, four color supers is one of the genres GURPS really struggles with mechanically - the genre is just so unrealistic that making it work with the rest of GURPS is a huge stretch. XD

@Angle Which is why MSH throws realism out the window and has you watch as it falls to a messy death before you ever start creating a character.

It's also why Torg--despite offering mechanics that allow for representation of everything from mice to gods--explicitly declares to anyone that will listen that their superheros aren't the four color variety. Because that would just be too much.

(And this from a game that is all about subverting the very notion of "reality".)

@beadsland I'm not really familiar with TORG, but yeah, I can believe it. :P

@Angle TORG is GURPS for folks who like immersion so much they send postcards to the game design company describing the outcomes of their adventures to influence how the metaplot will advance over the coming months and years.

@beadsland Huh, alright. That sounds pretty damn cool, actually. :/

@Angle Oh, yeah?

But here's the thing: It's not just unrealistic. The setting is a conflict between realities, as such.

The mechanics are all about determining how long a cyberpriest can fight a dragon in a lost world that is quite literally the body of a goddess before reality slaps them both upside the head and says "Not Here, You Don't!"

@beadsland Huh, interesting. I'll need to add that to the list of things I need to look up. :P

@Angle They're just now releasing (via Kickstarter campaign) an update to the game, hence my looking at how to do a crossover between it and the Chronicles of Darkness setting.

@Angle Actually, I've always thought it would be interesting to develop a meta-game for TORG where each player created their own reality with its own rules, and then sent their champions into duels to vanquish the rule sets of the other players.

@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

@beadsland So I suppose you could say that the people drawn to GURPS are those who likely wouldn;t achieve anything too immersive even if using another system? :/

@Angle My impression is that those attracted to GURPS don't find immersion very compelling.

You seem to have suggested something very much like that just now, if I'm not mistaken.

@beadsland Mmm, sorta? I think it kinda ties into that whole "Emotional vs logical" thing that people talk about. On the whole I think it's a bit of an oversimplification, but there are places where it is indeed a useful model, and this is one of them. I, and I suspect a lot of GURPS players, are more towards the logical on that spectrum. I tend to look at things fairly logically, so realism and internal consistency are usually fairly important to me. I would guess you look at things emotionally, so immersion and the over all feel of a work are much more important to you, yes? :P

@beadsland I can think that way too of course, and often find it quite interesting and useful, but I can;t do it for long periods at a time, and when it comes to RPG's I tend to default into my Goal Oriented Problem Solving mindset, which is very much on the other end of the spectrum... XD

Well, yes, we're all capable of flipping the script for a time, but the whole thing about being more this or that is that you're more comfortable doing things the way you are more comfortable with.

@Angle Agreed. INFJ here. 😜

That said, would suggest that you can have something that is illogical and nonetheless internally consistent.

The world created by Lewis Carroll, for instance, is consistently illogical.

Which is all to say, there's no reason you can't create a game system even *more* flexible than GURPS, and yet also build it so that consistency is not too tightly coupled to realism.

Still doesn't address the immersion question, but it'd be a great thing nonetheless.

@Angle Myself, I really need to learn to play against type more.

I think I'd be a much better player if I wasn't always portraying a hermit who doesn't have anything in common with anyone anywhere and can't figure out how to integrate with a team to save their life.

@beadsland haha yeah same. XD

@beadsland @Angle pretty much any detail can be called out as being a key support or superfluous to design goals. e.g. if it's a tense horror or tactical combat game, modelling individual morale and weapons reliability would be high priorities, vs D&D-style swords and sorcery where a lot of the focus goes to "performative heroism" and doling out loot. that' makes a generalization challenging - you can run a campaign with a generic ruleset, but the extra tweaks add more of a focus.

@Triplefox @Angle Yep.

@Triplefox @Angle It's not just about providing for a combat system, but also providing the tools for *balancing* any system (combat or otherwise) one wants to configure.

Did you know that buildings with central air are supposed to have their HVAC system balanced twice a year. It's an expensive process using specialized tools to reroute airflow to serve the building's occupants appropriately given ambient conditions outside the building. (Many buildings never do it.)

@beadsland @Triplefox I agree? But I still think it could be worth doing. :P

@Angle @Triplefox Oh, no doubt! It'd be very challenging project even if only for pen-and-paper games and for that reason alone, well worth doing.

Taking it to the level of translating models that, for human players are readily fungible if one decides to fiddle with them, to computer representations, that's another challenge altogether.

GURPS was gorgeous in its audaciousness. GURPS the computer game engine would likely be a nightmare to maintain, if not to build.

@Triplefox @Angle (I think I reversed my position somewhere along that line of thought, but am not entirely certain where, why or how. *shrug*)

@beadsland @Angle convention and ability to communicate a new design. especially when the project is large, it's very hard to say more than "clone this" across a large team. and most developers don't get any training in turning other principles into design framework, so they don't have any grounding except the prior art.

@Triplefox @Angle Yes. I strongly suspect that part of that communication hurdle is the available toolchains.

It's easier to say "do X using tool Y" than to say "do Z for which you will first have to build tool Alpha, because none of the tools available to us can do anything resembling Z yet".

There are programming tasks that I want to accomplish today but that I cannot do readily because the apposite tools don't exist. It would be the same for gaming as for any problem domain.

@Angle @beadsland a corollary to my previous is that people with fine arts or philosophy training see design differently from pure technicians, who are given to optimizing the framework of previous rulesets and tend to focus instead on changes in scope(minimizing, maximizing) or changing technical aspects(e.g. simulation details).

When speaking of commercial games, they're driven by a marketing imperative, so the design is framed by an initial pitch and filled in from there.

@Angle As for whether it's a good idea. Pshaw. It's an idea. Ideas are good. (Even if the products that come of those ideas are often suspect.)

@Angle Have you seen the Mirrors book from White Wolf? It offers a lot of broad thinking on these issues.

It's specific to the framework of WoD, but the questions raised are easily generalized.

@beadsland ...Huh. I guess I should probably look through the list in detail before I go thinking about making my own. I was thinking of basically having a framework for making your own system, with a number of different sliders and assumptions you could try and use. Probably wouldn't work, to be honest, but it's fun to think about. XD

@Angle Also, this thread might help figure out what pitfalls you need to consider:

http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=54754.0

From what you're describing, it sounds like you want to design an meta-framework for generating game designs, rather than a game system, per se, yes?

@beadsland Yes, exactly. XD

@Angle In that case, also consider Nomic.

There are also a crop of tabletop RPGs now that that get away from the traditional character sheet, with GMs and Players basically working out what characters can do during the course of play. Wil Wheaton's Tabletop presented one such game this season, I believe.

@beadsland Also, hey! Bay12! I have an account there. :P

@beadsland I guess ultimately what I really want is a whole field of established techniques, math, recorded facts, and worked examples for creating games. Which sorta exists, I guess? Just not quite as accessible as I want it to be. XD

@Angle So you want a game design kit (specific to the RPG genre), complete with a probabilities atlas akin to the ballistics tables used by gunners to figure out how to aim heavy weapons in different weather conditions.

The atlas alone would be an amazingly powerful tool, I'd think.

@Mycroft You don't like GURPS? What do you not like about it? :P

@Angle I had a bad first experience.
While looking for a D&D or any kind of RPG group, I got invited to a group a friend was in that was playing GURPS. I said I'd never played before and didn't know much about it, but was eager to learn, and they said that was fine.

So I show up at the session a bit late, my fault, the whole group is gathered around a table. I'm welcomed in, they clear off a side table to sit me at, give me a stack of 6 books, tell me to make a character.

@Mycroft Ah, yeah. It's not very noob freindly, I'll give you that. XD

@Angle then proceeded to continue their play session with me stuffed in a corner, trying to understand rulebooks I'd never seen, and felt like I was being the rude one of I interrupted to ask character creation questions.

@Mycroft Yeah, they probably should have helped walk you through, or given you a selection of premades or something. :/

@Angle yes, I've since been told it's less of a universal game and more of a game making toolkit, with it being very common that the GM decides what to include and focus on, and what is getting ignored, especially in selection of available skills.

It's just hard getting over my first impression, and I'd be down with playing it with a supportive group, but still.

Also sounds crunchy, while I'm drawn to FAE etc these days for more narrative/story. And D&D. But not Pathfinder.

@JTE Well, just check out the post. I already have a couple hefty comment threads. If you wanna know more feel free to ask. :p

@Angle
Oh, silly me. 🤦🏼 My instance didn't get any of that and therefore there is absolutely no way for me to see it even exists without navigating instead to your profile on your instance. The thread from the perspective of my instance is entirely barren.

Mastodon is an absolutely horrible form of communication. At least when it comes to meeting new people and trying to learn about them. 🤷🏼

@JTE Huh, really? it should load the rest of the thread when you look at the post. :/

@JTE Failing that, heres a link i guess. :/

https://witches.town/@Angle/3820425

@Angle It should, but that's not how Mastodon Federation works.

No one on my instance was following you nor anyone else involved in the conversation before now, so the only reason it even knows about the head post is because someone boosted it. Or something like that.

But yes, looking at the conversation on witches.town works fine. Thank you.

@JTE Ah, I see. I rarely run into that problem because I obsessively follow anyone who isn't actively repulsive, so occasions where I find myself wanting to read something written by someone I'm not following are few and far between. XD

@Angle Yeah. My instance actually only has about 4 active users right now and 10 total. Or something like that.

Okay, the about page says 36 accounts signed up, but I've not seen anything from most of 'em.

Point is, tiny instance. Few people are following. Very little federation. More populated instances won't encounter this problem as much. (Which seems counter-intuitive to the point of federation as a decentralizing mechanism?)

@JTE Mmm, yeah. I really think mastodon should have some kind of built in autofederation capability. Like a follow bot, but less obtrusive. :/

@Angle At least for servers which explicitly do an admin handshake on it and *want* to share all of their public content automatically, right? That would be nice I guess. The way it is now is good for keeping down inter-server bandwidth costs to the minimum requirements, though.

@JTE Hmm, yeah thats a good point. And I guess there are plenty of other things to do first. Still, I think the fact that people are using follow bots shows that there is a need here thats not being addressed.