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.

In the Raging Heroes Kickstarter thread, Azazelx brought up the idea of an open source ruleset that you could use with anyone's minis.

 Azazelx wrote:
I honestly wouldn't put much stock in their "game". The market is flooded with sci-fi skirmish titles, both out and upcoming. It's a large financial investment to get a ruleset up and running, and with RH being French, you'd expect that the rules would first have to be written in French, then playtested, then translated into English and have the living hell proofread out of them by competently bilingual people. That's a huge investment of time and money. There's a reason, after all that Felix eventually decided that Warthrone wouldn't be getting released in English.

I feel the same way about the Dreamforge and Anvil "games" as well, FWIW - and the same again if Vic decides that she wants a game to go with her Not-Guard.

I think a better solution would be for some kind of GURPS option, almost. A solid ruleset for sci-fi skirmish battles, open licence (similar to what WotC did with D20 years back) then used in a universal manner by all the small companies. Let's say Mantic decided to go this way with the Warpath 2.0 ruleset, which I've not played, but seems to have good feedback. Then companies like RH, Dreamforge, Vic, etc etc could essentially release their own "Worldbook" with the base rules reprinted as well as their own faction's rules and fluff included. If you know one system, you know them all. - and then each company caretakes their own version. If you want to play Kurganovas vs Eisenkern, then if your opponent agrees, then go for it. (Bearing in mind Dreamforge may not be balanced against Kurganovas) If not, it's Kurganovas vs Iron Empire.

Seriously, if several of these smaller companies wanted to get together and grow the hobby a little, this would be a good way to go about it, they'd then all be in cooperation as well as competition - which is a good thing considering the number of failed games over the years. Put some money in, get a couple of quality guys to put together a ruleset - Alessio, Priestley, Chambers, Hoare, Thornton are all out there doing work for hire.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I have an idea for that. Do it like RPGs. Or more accurately do it like Az suggested. Like GURPS. So we have the core rule set. Book X. Book X contains the basic rules for Sci Fi war gaming, and includes a couple army lists from various systems and some generic ones you can play with literally everything. The book's simple, easy to understand (Unlike GURPS which is calculus in disguise) but if you play a particular system, like say we're all Raging Heroes fans, you go to your FLGS and pick up the TGG Splatbook, which contains all the lore, special rules and army lists for the five TGG armies. (IE, KST, Jail Birds, DE and Battle Space Nuns). Larger systems like Iron Core(with it's 8+ factions) might be in multiple volumes. Or have actual individual faction codex equivalents available along with more special rules and more in-depth fluff/lore.

 vic wrote:
Its certainly an intriguing idea. In regard to the Vic Minis range, I have focused on modelling, not rules. Rules might happen in the future, but how many sci-fi skirmish games does the industry really need. I am not a rules writer, my first love is modelling and background, Andy Hoare has written some great fluff for my regiments. If there was a system where all that could be integrated with other ranges, I'd be very interested. Consider me the first company to throw the hat in the ring.

--------------------------------------------------------------


I don't know... how to get that started. I guess first you start with wishlisting, then eliminate the unworkable stuff, then what.... talk to the writers mentioned and see what it takes to contract them?

Hey, thanks Ouze and everyone else for the positive feedback on the concept. As it happens, Vic's post is exactly why I've had this on my mind for awhile - how many skirmish rulesets do we need? - and with Kickstarters coming out of the woodwork these days and every second producer wanting to have their own game down the line, it just seems like a more elegant solution than a pile of Balkanised (great job, there!) rulesets. This sort of thing could be wide ranging enough to support published volumes or PDFs depending on the manufacturer's wants and needs. And things like Hasslefree's Grymm, Heresy's various sci-fi troopers, Copplestone's Future Warriors, even Foundry's Future Warriors could have a home of their own aside from being proxied for Imperial Guard.

The other reason I've been thinking about this idea lately is reading many posts in various threads talking about "hopefully one day _____ will be able to compete more directly with GW." Individually it's probably not going to happen, but with a more ...united approach to the ruleset, and a touch of friendly cross-promotion, I'd imagine that beginning to carry the ______ range might become more attractive to retailers if they're already selling the rules and some other figures in the broader "family" - resulting in more pie for all those participating.

Kind of in the same way that I went into my former FLGS across town several years ago after the D20 "revolution" and saw all these open licence games on the shelf. Except that rather than buying one core rulebook and a couple supplements per game for that group of 4-6 players, and then concentrating on the one product, the thought it that it would/could be much more like one person buying a new splat book and then purchasing 10-100 new models from a participating manufacturer to go with it...

I'm not sure what the next step would be? Contact people like the Mantic guys, Kev (Hasslefree), Mark (DFG), the RH crew and so forth and see if/who would be interested?

IMO the idea is great. as Azazelx said "Dreamforge may not be balanced against Kurganovas"...well...IMHO the point cost and the balancing shoul be somehow granted.

if company A sells a standard soldier with standard stats, valued 10 points...and if company B sells his how standard soldier with the same stats, but a point cost of 5...that's just ugly and unfair. They are not really part of the same game...
I think there should be at least some guidelines of a sort of control of the community on that kind of stuff. My2cents

It's an intriguing idea. I'd be interested if it ever came to fruitition. I personally love 40k. But I'm not going to pretend parts of that love aren't nostalgia (since I've been playing for 15+ years), the lore, the models, or ease of finding a game. I enjoy 40k's game play but if a universal skirmish/full scale wargame was set up then I'd be interested if only for variety. As it stands right now it's hard to get into a different game because of the sheer number of them and the difficulty of finding a game or wondering how long the game will actually exist.

That's kind of the point. We've had a lot of scattered and failed sci-fi skirmish games over the years, and while I tend to buy most of my stuff with one eye to using them as Imperial Guard, it seems that most producers have a sci-fi skirmish game on their radar. I just figure it'd be easier to maintain one ruleset and a number of splat books - ie: Codex: Dreamforge - with all of the fluff/rules for Eisenkern and Shadowkesh and whatnot included - I figure it gives all the smaller producers a chance to have their background and rules for their models out there without more competing skirmish rulesets (the majority of which will be very small or doomed to failure).

The world is flooded with tabletop rules, why not make another one? With playtested rules for every existing miniature in the world? Yeah why not?

It should be written in Esperanto, an easy language without the ballast of other languages

I think the easiest "model" would be to base it on WYSIWYG. A basic 28mm human trooper in some form of non-powered armor with a low powered laser rifle.

So you have the stats of a human, tack on "save" that his type of armor grants, and apply the rules of a "low powered laser rifle"

Though I'm probably looking at a system to cover the models and how they looks, rather than a system that would keep the flavor and feeling of the model and include it in the system.

I think the idea has merit, I've lost count of the number of skirmish games that I've seen touted about over the years.

Balance could be an issue, though if the basic book included things like the old VDR and a similar system for pointing up troops, it'd be both easier to keep things balanced and give something for those who just want a set of rules to play around with.

Approach wise, it may be better going down the route of getting something together before approaching companies to see what they think. It does mean that it could be a lot of work for nothing (other than another set of rules kicking around) if no one is interested, but it'd likely pay off to have something to show off rather than an idea.

Oh, and we'd need to launch the core rules via kickstarter

As long as I can use my flying assault butts, I don't care how the system is started

This is a legitimately cool idea! I'd be willing to buy it if such a thing was created.
It might give me a justification for the endless variety of human minis I possess, and actually motivate me to paint them.
Plus I love fluff, but hate learning new rules - so this seems tailored for me perfectly.

Edit: spelling.

Geez, I'm glad someone started this thread. After read Az's post last night, I just couldn't sleep, eh. I had so many visions and ideas of how wonderful this would be.

My friends all have W40K armies, but barely know the rules, because they find them counterintuitive and reading the book is just too much of a time investment. Now of course as soon as I bring up the idea of another game, I get shot down.

With this, it might ease the pain. We'd have to find a way of making the mechanics scale, though, to be usable from skirmish to company level.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So, can we start the wishlisting phase?

This is already being worked on. The rules system that I'm writing, Aetherverse, is specifically licensed for use by anyone, including miniatures producers that want to create rules for their own minis. It is very much designed from the ground up to be used in the manner which you are all speaking of, and I've granted blanked permission for anyone out there to release army books for the game using the rules within the books.

There's even a suggestion box in the forums for people to help create new rules to fit in with other lines of miniatures that might not already be covered.

Basically, instead of trying to start yet another ruleset... consider helping to support one that does exactly what you're looking for.


From the licensing page:

As noted in the rules PDF and in several places on the page, Aetherverse 2nd Edition is licensed under a Creative Commons license, specifically one that allows for portions of the game (or things derived from the rules, such as Army Lists) to be reprinted by others for non-commercial use, as long as they follow the other provisions of the license. Those that wish to use the rulebook for commercial means (basically, anything that makes money) cannot do so unless they first acquire permission from the author.

This page, however, serves as blanket permission for the following limited commercial uses:.
-Permission is granted for the commercial distribution of army lists created using the Aetherverse 2nd Edition Army Creation System. This allows authors to create and sell “army books” using background material of their own creation, including to support specific miniature lines.
-Army lists created may be freely released to support the commercial distribution of miniature lines.

I think this is a great idea, but it would be hard to make happen. If you had a single driving force behind it creating a solid and flexible rule set, then you'd have a better chance to suceed than with too many cooks in the kitchen.

D20 worked because WotC was driving. When they took the keys away, everyone was stuck.

Didn't Mongoose make the Battlefield Evolution rules open source? I don't know anything about them, so I don't know how good they are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yes, Aetherverse is a system I'm interested in looking at. I also want to take a look at Fanticide, but that is geared more towards fantasy, so it would not be a good fit for sci-fi.

I'd love to see a system that can function as a skirmish game with a handful of models or scale up to army vs. army, but that also could be used for any setting, such as fantasy, steampunk, sci-fi, etc.

It would have to be able to handle unit/vehicle creation, magic/psychic powers, tournaments, various figure scales (6mm-32mm), etc.

I don't think that will happen soon, but it could happen eventually. I feel like we've been in a golden age of the hobby with all the small manufacturers that have been churning out great models, but maybe the next evolution of the hobby could include a system such as this.

I am printing the ruleset of Aetherverse. It's what I was looking for. How can we help you in the testing?

Sergio Tulkas wrote:
I am printing the ruleset of Aetherverse. It's what I was looking for. How can we help you in the testing?

Read, build armies, play, post at the forums at the site (or in the thread for the game in this forum)! That's all there is to it.

I actually wouldn't recommend printing unless you have no other way to make it portable when you're playing. It's up to 80-something pages and is having new stuff added every month.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 bbb wrote:
I'd love to see a system that can function as a skirmish game with a handful of models or scale up to army vs. army, but that also could be used for any setting, such as fantasy, steampunk, sci-fi, etc.

It would have to be able to handle unit/vehicle creation, magic/psychic powers, tournaments, various figure scales (6mm-32mm), etc.

I don't think that will happen soon, but it could happen eventually.

AV does or will do everything you talk about. 1st edition had conversion rules for 6mm (that are probably still valid with the 2nd edition, I just haven't looked at it yet) and I will be doing a conversion of the old narrative campaign system for playing with extremely low numbers of models. It works for Fantasy/Historical simply by capping one stat at the desired level.

It is a good idea on paper, but has many many issues.

GURPS and the D20 system have the virtue of been an RPG, every RPG that will be made essentially follows the same concept,character doing stuff, wargames on the other hand have, different scales and different scope, you cannot realistically hope one universal system will allow to play a skirmish level game with 10 figures and a mass battles game with around a hundred in 28mm, let alone 15mm 6mm and so on.

At best one should need to create a universal system for each category and then you have a lot of game systems to haggle with.

Do folks realize that this has already been done many times?

What they are talking about is referred to as a "Generic" ruleset in that it can be adapted to different minis and one can create their own stats.

Aetherverse is a good, fairly recent example, but there have been quite a few rulesets that are either completely free and open source or are commercial, but have a unit creation mechanic.

Commercial games that have-or-had a unit creation mechanic. Some have a setting and some don't.

-Tomorrows War
-Shockforce
-Vor
-Future War Commander
-Song of Blades and Heroes
-Gruntz

Open source free games that have a unit creation mechanic:
-WarEngine (base rules from Shockforce)
-No Limits
-No Quarter
-In The Emperors Name
-FUBAR

There are many more...

In the end, when regarding such a ruleset, I'd like to know:

-What does it do better than existing rulesets?
-What is the specific scope. Is it skirmish, platoon, battalion, etc? You can make a game that is generic in setting and units, but if it tries to cover all scopes it is bound to fail.

You could say that, in theory a really generic game system were other creators can create their own game with lists and special rules instead of a generic system with a build in list creator could be different, I do not think its plausible though.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
You could say that, in theory a really generic game system were other creators can create their own game with lists and special rules instead of a generic system with a build in list creator could be different, I do not think its plausible though.

Technically, any game that has been released via Creative Commons allows this. For instance, AV's license allows for authors to use and modify the work for (noncommercial) uses. This can include people creating their own games using the AV rules as a base. Someone can take the rules, create a lightweight skirmish version or huge 6mm mass-battle version of the game, and release it (again, noncommercially, unless they ask for permission which I'm very likely to give) as a standalone game. It is plenty plausible, and I am fully in support of someone doing that with my rules.

In a more general functionality sense, though, truly open-source in the software sense of anyone being able to create new rules/additions and have them be considered official for the core rules wouldn't work very well for a miniatures game just because of balancing issues. Balance is even more critical than in RPG's where there's always a GM that can say "look, that's just too silly". Otherwise, anybody can walk into a shop or (gods forbid) a tournament with a book they typed up on their own giving their army unbeatable rules. A system that is going to be functional in such a way needs to at least have either a rigid algorithm that covers any possibility of the way things can be used in the rules (which ends up like VOR's design system: boring as hell) or with a central authority (either the original author of a team that understands the rules and can work together) vetting and editing suggestions.

I've chosen the latter for mine since it's just the easiest and "safest" way to do so. Any new rules created from others' suggestions will be worked on publicly, allowing for anybody to comment and help create them, but the final check will always come down to me. (I'd toyed with the idea of just releasing the whole thing to Dakka Dakka to let the entire community write the game, but felt that was going to end up being a bit too chaotic. Creating a subforum for rules development would be fun, though, if the Dakka management was up for it.)

Eilif:
The games that you quoted as "open source": did those specifically allow for publication of units/armies created with the rules? "Free" does not equal "open source"; there are a number of rules that are free with creation mechanics, but in order for there to be any chance of other companies using those rules they should be explicitly given permission to do so.

When Az first suggested this, I was really stoked. After giving it some consideration, I did have some second thoughts though.

Specifically, I thought about the OGL and its effect on gaming. While it's true that the d20 system gave us a lot of quality material, it also gave us (far, far more) utter crap. And even worse, many older titles were relaunched as d20 systems (Deadlands, Cthulu) and several games which came out during that time came out as d20 games rather than coming up with an original system. Unfortunately, many of these games (and every single d20 reboot I ever played) weren't worth the match it would take to properly dispose of them.

That being said, I would still be tentatively interested in something like this. There's been some mention of WYSIWYG being incorporated into the system somehow, which I think is a worthwhile avenue to pursue. I'd really be interested in some kind of mechanical advantage for armies that are completely assembled/based/painted as well. There is precedent, actually, for WYSIWYG determining the stat line of a model. The Fuzzy Heroes game, although a bit silly, was using that very idea in their mechanics twenty years ago. (Although it lacks complexity, it's a fun game, incidentally. Although I've never managed to find anything that can bring down the limited edition KISS action figures. )

Someone said it earlier, but the key to success for such a system is that it will require a significant driving force behind it. A community made ruleset will remain just that: a community's ruleset. A small company's ruleset will also remain equally small. Without a Brand™ behind it to give it prominence, it won't take off. The GURPS analogy has been brought up, so why can't Steve Jackson Games get in on this idea?

I wonder if H.G. Wells ever made the system that he and his buddies invented publicly available.

 daedalus wrote:
I wonder if H.G. Wells ever made the system that he and his buddies invented publicly available.

Yes.

http://www.amazon.com/Little-Wars-Dodo-Press-Wells/dp/140993134X

 Magc8Ball wrote:

Eilif:
The games that you quoted as "open source": did those specifically allow for publication of units/armies created with the rules? "Free" does not equal "open source"; there are a number of rules that are free with creation mechanics, but in order for there to be any chance of other companies using those rules they should be explicitly given permission to do so.

That's a good point. I don't think that the rules themselves were completely open source. However, many of them encouraged folks to make stats for any given army or game and post them online. WarEngine, No Limits, Gruntz, and a few others were very much in this vein.

Some other games like Future War Commander went so far as to include stats for dozens of companies rules in the rules.

One other thing that happens fairly often is that a good set of rules (often one with a good unit creation mechanic) will be used for multiple games and even licensed to other companies.
-Song of Blades and Heroes was licensed to make "Song of Our Ancestors" (By Zombiesmith) and Shadowsea (by ANtimater games) and supplements have been made for lines of figures by Eureka and Splintered Light.
-Shockforce (Warengine) was used by it's own company to make GWAR and then by another to make "Golgo Island"
-Two Hour Wargames "Reaction" Engine has been used for several games published by "Rebel Miniatures"

I don't really see any intrinsic value in "Open Source" rules. By virtue of being Open Source, people are going to modify them and there won't be one ruleset "to be used with anyone's miniatures" anyway, just a bunch of not-necessarily-compatible games that are similar. Rather than trusting the masses to make a ruleset, I prefer very well crafted "generic" rulesets with a good unit creation mechanic to it and that's almost all that I play.

In the end though, it could probably work on a small scale, but I don't think we'll see such a ruleset really catch on in a big way. Not every gamer is looking for the same kind of rules. Those who play independent games are going to by nature have wider range of tastes, and those who play the big games often prefer to have rules and minaitures in one synergistic package.

 Kroothawk wrote:
The world is flooded with tabletop rules, why not make another one? With playtested rules for every existing miniature in the world? Yeah why not?

It should be written in Esperanto, an easy language without the ballast of other languages

It appears that you are choosing to wilfully ignore the point of the idea - which is to say that the most likely outcome for the rulesets of the many individual manufacturers is to end up alongside the piles of other dead sci-fi skirmish games. No one is suggesting at all there would or should be playtested rules for every miniature in the world or anything as ridiculous as that. I'm suggesting one basic set of rules used by all, and then RH can use and include those base rules for movement, shooting, bikes, walkers, etc in their own "Raging Rulebook" which they then take responsibility for looking after as far as editions, upgrades, playtesting, etc. Dreamforge, Vic, etc would do the same - look after their own rules. With some guidelines put in place by the rules authors, individual companies can decide whether to make their stuff broadly compatible with others (by using consistent points costs), or go their own way.

Make the rules usable for tournament play

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Someone said it earlier, but the key to success for such a system is that it will require a significant driving force behind it. A community made ruleset will remain just that: a community's ruleset. A small company's ruleset will also remain equally small. Without a Brand™ behind it to give it prominence, it won't take off. The GURPS analogy has been brought up, so why can't Steve Jackson Games get in on this idea?

That's kind of the point. Not saying "here's some open source rules - use those" to games companies, but suggesting that several of them might want to talk to one another to compare their individual wants and needs and cooperate on a broad ruleset (of agreed conflict size) rather than going it alone individually at a much greater investment and expense of time and money (and being more likely to fail) - whether it's taking on board something already written or getting Rick Hoare-Chambers and Alessio Thornton to put something together for them.

I don't see the "driver" being the community (it's not a GOA-style idea) so much as, say, Hasslefree, Vic Minis, Raging Heroes and Dreamforge all having a chat about what they want, putting in a bit of money together (rather than a lot individually) and getting their own "Fanticide" written up, which they all share an investment and ownership in. (as opposed to a third non-miniatures party like SJG). The Brands™ would be their own brands - just the same as the theoretical RH ruleset is it's own brand, and Dreamforge's ruleset is also it's own brand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 loki old fart wrote:
Make the rules usable for tournament play

Not really the point (between manufacturers, anyway). If individual companies want to make their own armies directly cross-compatible, then fine. I'm sure if someone like Alessio had a hand in writing rules they would have an eye towards that. - so certainly tourneys between RH's own different factions could obviously be done if they chose to have the rules written with that in mind.

IF you make the rules fair and concise enough for tournament play they should be good enough to be accepted quicker.

Besides I like the thought of forge fathers v space wolves etc in a match

Um.. I don't think GW would be on board with this, so any SW (or other GW) rules would be completely house-ruled or community-made (and thus not likely to be tournament-accepted), which isn't so different to you just using Forgefathers as Ultramarine proxies...

The point is there will never be a good "do it all" wargames rule set.

I can see several one for each type of wargaming, but not a "GURPS" of wargaming because each scale and type of combat is different, I do wonder how much pressure would this place on the manufacturers who choose to adapt it, would they be forced to make vehicles for example because the system would theoretically need them?