Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

First, let's get angry.

Sorry for trolololo, but I heard a rumor that GW had increased their prices eightfold in the last 20 years for a simple manufactured good, that their rules have got more and more simplified, and that someone ought to create an open source, use-any-minis-you-want, fun and balanced wargame.

Since the closest thing to fitting the bill so far is Chess, I made http://www.tabletopbattles.org/ and I hope some intelligent, free-thinking gamers come join me in writing the wargame we'll all be playing 10 years from now, using the figures we wanted to buy for the price we'd like to buy them for.


Thanks for reading!

I'm down for helping wherever I can, because it seems like a solid concept. But what exactly do you want to accomplish? Are you wanting to make your own universe, with defined armies and whatnot, or are you looking to create more of...for a lack of a better term, "game engine" that has design rules and whatnot that can work in any setting.

And detail is a bit arbitrary. Are we talking about more of a skirmish type game, or one suitable for large battles?

To be completely honest, I don't want to so much design it as bring the designers together. You guy who play every day know better than I do.

But yeah, I'm not looking for a game (like Portal or Team Fortress or Counterstrike) so much as an engine to build those games on. (Games are much easier to deign than the engine...)

Much like the M / WS / BS / S / T / W / I / A / Ld base that Gw has. Only, ours can be much simpler and more extensible. None of us has ever read their engine, but we could all describe it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for skirmish (1 - 20 models per side) vs company level (20-100 models per side), I think that might or might not necessitate two systems like necro/40k or mord/WHFB.

What's that you say? It would cost you $160 simply to enter two of those four systems with GW before painting and terrain?

Well, gak, we better hurry. We're losing people by the day.

I am moving this thread to Dakka Discussions.

Thanks, Kilkrazy.

To restate my principle for thus forum, I think the tabletop wargaming community needs a fullfeatured, open-source engine for their skirmish to company level games. Roleplaying games have D20, FPSes have the Half-life engine, Console RPG's have FF and platformers have Mario. All of those have several fantastic games based off of them. It shouldn't take a huge effort to modify the basic rules set we come up with to fit any genre and set of army lists.

My main thrust is that GW/FFG/Privateer/Ral Partha/WizKids/WOTC/(Other company who publishes rules and miniatures to play with said rules) have a bunch of mediocre rulesets that are just good enough to sell fantastic miniatures for absurd prices. We should take the hobby back, we're a seriously creative bunch of people and we don't need to be led around by the nose just to enjoy our favorite games.

Historical minis people don't worry about this, they're not getting gouged. Model train enthusiasts aren't getting gouged. Kids with action figures aren't getting gouged. It's just us, and we're in a situation where we can't roll dice with our friends because they play Khador and we play Space Marines and she plays Squats and Sam has gundams and Chris plays some Wizkids crazy gak or some D&D minis thing and Joe plays some ridiculous Chronopia stuff that went out of business years ago.

Absurd, right? Let's fix that. I know the hardcore crunch gamers hang out here. I'm asking you guys to join up and find the others who should be a part of it and maybe we should all make a wicked system that makes the GW engine look like the clunkfest we know it to be, allows anyone to use the minis they want, and releases us from this BS consumerist dilemma the hobby is constantly in because miniatures are arbitrarily tied to boring rules sets that were engineered to sell miniatures.

Thanks,
John

I applaud your intent, but this has already been tried.
Warengine and NoLimits are two open source wargames rulesets that are completely free and have a small following.

No matter how much they complain, Fantasy and Sci-Fi players don't tend to actually use the many quality free options that are available. Rather, they tend to gravitate toward fluff-heavy, pre-packaged gaming systems.

Also, there is very wide variation in what people want out of a wargames set, so I'm skeptical that a one-size-fits-all solution would be accepted by the masses.

I'm not saying it can't be done, but be aware that rules-by-comitee don't have a very good track record.

Been suggested over and over. But rules by committee are generally not good. Generic rules for any system are bland and have to take too many things into account.

Build the engine, make a rules set. Then release it for testing and see how bad people break the hell out of it. Try again.

Good luck with it.

@Eilif Warengine and NoLimits are a good start. I agree, their following is smallish. I think it's important to iterate and get the formula right - it'd be great to have a rules set that has the right traits to start a real shakeup.

Re: Design by committee - We've all made our own homebrew rules systems anywhere between something thrown together to play out an epic battle in an RPG to the far-out card-based concept wargame game. And there are a lot of great free-as-in-beer rulesets out there that talented people have come up with. But the project isn't just to build the ruleset - it's also to establish the community that will support it, sustain it, and grow and refine the system. A small team is necessary for the core game design, then lots of other small teams to test and extend, writers and other creative folks to bring it to a final product.

@mikhaila Right on, releasing an 0.1 is the next step.

To both of you: In your experience, what is the best sized team to develop a new tabletop wargame engine? Just one?


Thanks,
John

Also, to clarify, I'm talking about a skirmish-level (5-30 models) engine. It's not that the setting doesn't interest me - just that there's no reason a great set of rules can't be adapted to suit any genre or setting.

That said, I know that army lists, scenarios, and campaigns will go a *long* way in garnering adoption, playtesting, and interest. So I guess that's step two for us.

I finally got the chance to try No Limits and WarEngine. They're awesome, but not what I'm looking for - not personally, nor what I think the hobby needs. (fast, universal, very few charts)

http://www.tabletopbattles.org/?page_id=11 has a first draft of the rules. I've tried them several times with friends, and they feel close to what I'm going for - but they need heavy editing and probably more building out. Anyone's welcome to jump in and help, just drop me a line.

Thanks for the advice, guys. Hobbyist power!

*fist*

I'm developing a fast and loose, and especially simple skirmish system based on a drunken discussion at the last dinner party my wife and I hosted when one of her girlfriends expressed interest in playing a game but not if it was too complicated.

I've run some of the ideas past my friends who seem encouraged by the core mechanics and concepts. The setting is pretty unique, too, but the rules would be suitable for any setting. If you're interested, PM me and I'll fill you in on my ideas.

Seriously?

I'd say that this has already been done.

There are already over a million or so different rules sets out there to choose from, so why reinvent the wheel?

There's a bazillion and one homemade rulesets out there. heck I even made up one too. I don't know if open source is the way to go. Write your rules, make a website, give em out for free and let the gaming world tear it apart and help you refine it.

I think the real drive in table top games like 40K isn't the rules at all, but the miniatures. If you have awesome minis, people will want to play your game and just deal with the rules weather they suck or not. If you have awesome rules, that's great, but you won't have many players if your minis suck or you have none at all.

@Grot: There are a million different games one can play with a deck of cards, and none of them is best. But different people like different ones, and there's a thriving ecosystem of variants and players that keeps it interesting. In short, why *not* reinvent the wheel?

@Gavin: Awesome, PM'ed. If you need help getting a website set up for your rules, I'm your man!

@Necros: You have a very good point - it is totally the miniatures that sell 40k. But isn't that kind of goofy? In my opinion, the game balance has depreciated rapidly over the last few years - at the very least shouldn't we be playing a better game with the same miniatures?

OMG, just saw Black Water Gulch in your sig - I can't wait to play it. I think I can get a game in this weekend...


John

horatiocain wrote:

I finally got the chance to try No Limits and WarEngine. They're awesome, but not what I'm looking for - not personally, nor what I think the hobby needs. (fast, universal, very few charts)

Those are exactly the reason Warengine is my favorite 28mm system. Also, if you play it using just elites and characters it makes a nice skirmish game too.

Hordes of the Things is a generic fantasy engine based on
DBA.

http://www.wrg.me.uk/HISTORY/HOTT2.pdf

DBA/DBM/HOTT are perfect, perfect examples. They are wargamer's wargames, and they are simulationist to a large degree. And you can use whatever models or cardstock cutouts you like. They're perfect and I am very happy that they exist. Thanks for reminding me - I'm going to address them at www.tabletopbattles.org (where I've already chewed on a good deal of the ideas in this thread)

What about something a little more beer and pretzels than HOTT, preferable bindable to a small rulebook and playable in a half hour on a skirmish level or longer with more models? Ambitious, I know - I think it's what the hobby needs. Think of how many times GW released a thing like this.

But for them, it's not financially viable in the long run - you can only sell 20 models to each player, tops, and it's fairly replayable. (Would be more replayable for someone who owned a shelf full of fantasy minis) The ever-escalating codex war is much better for business, amirite?


John

Hi.
There are hundreds of great skirmish games already in existance, covering all possible aspects of complexity and focus.
So to try to make yet another skirmish game is a bit pointless , as its much easier to pick an existing rule se that is close to what you want and modify it.

However , there are NOT ANY well defined , modern sci fi battle rule sets.

EG The current game size and scope of 40k, with the rules written focusing on game play.

Perhaps a 'alternative rules set for 40k.' Might be more of a popular, and apreciated endevor.

But to define the design objectives first.So the most apropriate game mechanics and resolution methods can be used.

TTFN

As others have said there are plenty of rulesets out there and many of us have created our own (or attempted to) at least once at some stage.

I've started writing my own ruleset for a Zombie Survival game and have looked into quite a lot of different rulesets that are freely available and am pretty much making it up as I go along. I think a generic ruleset is very difficult to achieve because a game will always be influenced by it's intentions or by the themes of the armies/units/characters that are fighting.

To create a generic rules engine is all well and good but it comes down to flavour - it's the stats of the armies/units and their rules that can make or break a game IMO. I've never not had fun playing a game as of yet - even though the rules can be frustrating, confusing or contradictory at times - you'll always find a way around it and carry on. Here's some links you might find useful...

http://www.freewargamesrules.co.uk/
http://store.twohourwargames.com/free.html

To start why not ask people what they want most from a wargame or what mechanics they prefer? Not everyone is going to like any rules you/we/us come up with but it makes sense to ask people what it is they want from a game engine. I don't know if these have been the subject for any polls.

Do people prefer IGOUGO or Activation based combat or else an Action/Reaction based system?
Do people prefer inches, hexes or centimetres? Should the engine include allowances for all of them?
Do people want a simple set of core rules that can be expanded with a more advanced system?
Would people like to create their own rules (which would be a necessity if they like the background of their models), if so would a rules/character creation system (like in RPG's) be out of the question?

Or should a rules engine try and cover every possible ground and cater to as many tastes as possible?

Perhaps a 'alternative rules set for 40k.' Might be more of a popular, and apreciated endevor.

I agree - I think most people like/love 40k but can be frustrated by the rules. I always enjoyed my games but they never encapsulated what I felt 40k to be - the fact that all generic CCW's are of equal lethality, whether it be a chainsword or a butter knife bugged/bugs me. I started my own rules modifier/expansion for 40k way back and while I like some of the ideas (like a universal orders system) - the task is monumental and I simply ran out of motivation for it. I'll leave a link here if the OP (or anyone else) is interested...

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/318085.page

The reason why the open license thing works so well is because it's within already established rulesets. D20 SRD IS D&D 3.5, for all intents and purposes. That's why people know about it, and why it's relevant. If you could find legal wrangling with which to take 40k and create your own "Open Warmallet 40Gs" that was just a barebones system without fluff, then you would have something comparable.

Actually, I just started a new topic about that very concept of an open license wargame.

I will just re iterate the general sentiment of the thread so far, there are loads of AMAZING baseline generic rulesets out there. If you want to create a ruleset (which i assume you do) make it crazy and unique. If you streamline too much you are left with a bland product more akin to videogame logic than a fun, evocative and exciting ruleset.

Hi again.
I have to take issue with what Perkustin said.

There are a load of amazing skirmish games out there.So just modify an existing one to fit your theme.

However ,if writing a sci fi battle game, dont aim for ' crazy and unique' ,try for 'intuitive and fun'.

40k is an example of how not to write well defined and concise rules .

Other games achive far more game play , with far fewer rules , because the focus is the end game play.

But to focus on the end game play , you need to have a clear definition of it to start with...


Do you folks want to try to define what you want from a new rule set?

Here is what I would like.(Feel free to post your own, )
Scope and Scale;- to cover similar units, and army sizes as used in 40k, but focus on DETAILED unit interaction.(Rather than micro and macro managment of resolutions.)

Game Play;-To be a straight forward simulation of modern warfare, to allow for intuitive rules and tactical interaction.

Game Mechanics ;- interactive game turn, resolution by direct comparison of / or, limited modification to characteristic values.

Less than 30 pages of rules and diagrams that allows for 'realistic' conflict between the 40k units units we know ,(and lets admit it love.)
In a fast paced intuitive tactical wargame suitable for mature gamers.

Mad4Minis wrote:

horatiocain wrote:
I finally got the chance to try No Limits and WarEngine. They're awesome, but not what I'm looking for - not personally, nor what I think the hobby needs. (fast, universal, very few charts)

Those are exactly the reason Warengine is my favorite 28mm system. Also, if you play it using just elites and characters it makes a nice skirmish game too.

Very much agreed! WarEngine is about as simple as it gets for sci-fi gaming that is still tactically engaging and has a truely excellent unit building system. There are plenty of rules/stats heavy sci-fi games already in production and Warengine runs in the opposite direction.

The thing with rules is that not everyone can write a good set of rules and good rules invariably require extensive playtesting, which is another reason that rules from "professionals" tend to do better than others. There are exceptions to this (Wastelands springs to mind) , but in my experience the best homebrew rules borrow heavily from existing successfull rulesets which in most cases have also been extensively playtested. Thats why Warengine (originally released with the fairly successfull shockforce game) and No Limits (based on the VOR ruleset) still have a following nearly a decade after their respective origin-games have colapsed.

horatiocain,
I took a look at your rules and blog. Looks like you've got a good start there. I hope you find a good team to carry you through. One thing I would caution you against is expecting a "reinvention of the hobby" . I'm not usually the party pooper, but 17 years of gaming tells me that it's probably not going to happen. Don't let this dissapoint you or keep you from developing your game. Success and a dedicated following is entirely possible for you and your games, but I just don't see an indie gamie revolutionizing gaming on the scale of a system with major financing and market share.

Here's the real issue. People go to indie games because they want something different than the big 3 (or 4) gaming systems. The problem is that there are so many different options and playing experiences avaiable that those who think freely enough to try other systems are the least likely of gamers to flock en'masse to one single option.

Put another way,
Those searching for something unique and different aren't all going to run in the same direction.

Hi Eilif.
I totaly agree.
And thats why it important in rules discussion to declare what you want to develop up front.
A rules set 'better than 40k' is a very wide open area.