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.

So I'm not going to do this exactly, but it's more a thought experiment to see how players, and other manufacturers, might react to the concept of a wargame being handled somewhat like D&D 3.5's open gaming license.

Say I create a fantastical new scifi game. It has a very well fleshed out setting, aesthetics, solid rules, and a good core set of 4-8 armies with a line of miniatures to match. These would be on par with the quality of Privateer Press and Games Workshop, or close to that.

That's all well and good, but the board/card/miniature games industry is already small enough that compartmentalizing more adds as much risk as it does help make the game into a concise package for the consumer to buy into. So what would happen if I opened it up a bit, an open license to allow other manufacturers to publish their own unofficial armies and army books for the system. Assuming, of course, that it got popular enough to draw players above and beyond the draw of other generic games.

So then, this setting is such so that there's a whole galaxy, or universe, teeming with life. That's all sorts of life, and cultures, and different takes on technology and warfare. The setting could support a myriad of miniature lines. Basically an army for every player.

But make no mistake, it's not a generic game. There's no point construction rules besides a basic system that's part of a SRD (system reference document) that's meant to be used by manufacturers or designers, not players, to help point out their armies. Likewise, there's a set scale, with well defined limits, concepts, and conceits of the setting. So players can't just throw together everything (unless of course someone just makes a generic army list). These lists wouldn't be tournament legal, but they would have a legal right to be able to advertise under the branding of the game (e.g. D20). Other limits like no trying to fill in units for Official armies, for example.

Another concept would be a premium version of the license, which requires vetting of some sort and a stricter balancing to work with the official armies. This would grant an army a kind of semi-official status. Once again, assuming the core game became popular enough to warrant someone wanting to pay for it.

What do you think? I'm wondering about reactions to this concept from both a player's and manufacturer/designer's perspective.

It's a system that doesn't force on players the hassle of creating and costing out their armies, which is time consuming and can lead to severe mix-maxing imbalances. For the core game producer, it's a big cross marketing effort, even if it cuts into the core game's packaging and bottom line.

Well it is something most gamers would love. However they would never be able to agree on a rule set. Some people love warmahordes because they like the small scale skirmish style of play, while some (like me) prefer large scale (apoc) games with tables of minis running to their death to die for their emperor/god/country/cause somebody said so.

Then add in rules for stuff like naval combat, that adds some more complications on making that something fair and balanced.

And while you are at it, it would have to be a system that works for a fantasy/midevil setting, historic, modern, and futuristic settings. You have to go broad so you get the maximum amount of people playing.

Also you need some sort of governing body. Look at the NMRA (National Model Railroad Association if I remember right). They control the standards, not the manufacturers. You need a group of gamers that are active, trustworthy, and willing to work constantly at it. It will be their job to decide balance issues, bring new companies into the fold, and set guidelines for models and what not.

Then assuming you can do ALL that, you need manufacturers who are willing to get behind the cause. Right of the bat GW and PP will be out. Their system already makes them money and they won't drop their own rules and fluff, too much is already invested in that. You pretty much have to get your own product line out, which will cost millions in capital if you want to be taken seriously. Of course, by costing you... it would cost manufacturers millions. You would want high detail resin and plastic models. If they look like junk, they won't sell well and you will lose players.

Now if you could get large scale participation in group, bringing gamers together like the NMRA, which if forums are any indication, you won't, but you could set some standards. It will still be hard to get the big companies in unless you can somehow make their rules obsolete and really hurt their mini sales, but that won't be for awhile.


However, I wish anyone luck if they do decide to do this. I would even get involved if it showed promise after a couple years. But for the core original group that would try it, probably would burn out and drop the whole idea after a few months.

Ah, but that's the beauty of it. I don't have to do anything related to making the rules and settings more generic enough to handle everything.

Instead, just make a game that stands on its own. It's not generic, but if players like the system and the setting, but maybe not the armies, they have other options to get into the game, or if they already happen to have miniatures in the right scale they can jump in much more easily.

Likewise, if a player isn't interested in the setting, rules, scale or anything, they can just go and find a generic ruleset that fits their needs, no harm done.

It's not a perfect system of course, other manufacturer's stuff will definitely cut into the bottom line of miniatures sales.

But what if on top of just a miniatures game, the setting also included a wider presence in other media, such as online games, or an RPG. A designer/manufacturer paying for a premium license would get access to those new forms of media, and the Core company would get licensing fees.

So basically what you want to do is make 40k again, but allow people to create their own unofficial armies.

So the only change from what I posted above, is that you don't make it too generic. But you lose out on people playing.

What made d20 so "great" is that it could be used in any setting with some minor adjustments. You are trying to make your own system and try to get people to play it, without offering such a great system of allowing people to play anything they want.

Why not make a GURPS kinda tabletop instead of a limited d20 system. With a base ruleset with a few supplements for a few settings, then you could cover lots of styles, with little effort.

The hardest part is still going to be writing the setting for your "official" settings. If you want to attract games and rpgs, even movies (indy films can do it right), you need a setting rich in detail and stories. And you have to do it in a sci fi setting, without stealing anything that could be remotely GW, because they will shut you down. And the argument of "well they stole it first" doesn't work here.

I still think the way to go with an "open" wargame is WRG's
Hordes of the Things. They tell what certain types of things
exist in their fantasy armies, point cost them, limit how many
elite type stuff you can have in the army, and then you pick
and choose based on the type of army you have.

Statlines are generic as units are defined by their role. A
Dwarf Blade would do the exact same thing as an Elven Blade,
for example, but the Elven army might have more dragons in
it or the Dwarven army will have warbands.

Are you talking about building frameworks for third parties to build games off of? Like a D6, D10, or even D20 system, scale parameters, and so forth that can be used to create sets of rules and then just license out your framework for people to make games?

sparkywtf wrote:
What made d20 so "great" is that it could be used in any setting with some minor adjustments. You are trying to make your own system and try to get people to play it, without offering such a great system of allowing people to play anything they want.

I think a big advantage is that D&D isn't in the same level of competitiveness as wargames, so 3rd party material didn't need to be as balanced as wargame material should. I know accusing GW of releasing broken rules is the National Sport of Dakka Dakka, but they do seem to at least try most of the time.

Also most RPGs are played as campaigns with a dedicated GM (or rotating set therof) who is 'in charge' and has veto rights on books if needed.

I think a game would need some common ground to be more than a basic backbone.

Also, the 'universal' RPG systems (GURPS, Savage Worlds, d20 if you're being broad-minded) still impart a definite flavor. GURPS has a lot of fine detail and complexity that is fine for a range of games, but I found it fell flat for a lot of humorous games. Savage Worlds is great, but everything it does is going to be a bit pulp-flavored as it's built with larger-than-life heroes, etc. I think a 'Universal' wargame is going to have this as well... It will likely have some bias, like being based off napoleonics-era warfare or something.

I made my comments on rules by commitee fairly clear in the other thread, but it sounds like what you're talking about is similar to what Ganesha games has with the Song of Blades and Heroes system.

It isn't truely open source, but as well as their large line of games based on SoBH, they also have licensed the system out to several gaming companies who have produced products that use the SoBH system with their IP. Of note is that SoBH has a fairly generic unit builder and some of the offshoot games have their own versions as well.

It's worth checking out how they're handling it.

I don't understand what you are asking.

It strikes me that you outfoxing yourself.