Opend20: Introduction - Revision history

84.52.251.127 at 17:27, 12 April 2007

2007-04-12T17:27:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:27, 12 April 2007
Line 21:		Line 21:
	The advantage of OpenD20 is two-fold: First, as we design and evolve this system online, we can add any of the 'good ideas' we want - so long as we can fit them in without things become convoluted.		The advantage of OpenD20 is two-fold: First, as we design and evolve this system online, we can add any of the 'good ideas' we want - so long as we can fit them in without things become convoluted.

	The other possibility is coming up with brand new innovations. Personally, I believe in the philosophy 'sub sole nihil ~~novi~~ est' - 'there is nothing new under the sun'. I 'invented' the 'stunt' system from Exalted long before it ever went to print. That doesn't mean that I'm particularly gifted, or even that the WW writers are, for that matter. We both/all came up with it ''because it was a good idea''!		The other possibility is coming up with brand new innovations. Personally, I believe in the philosophy 'sub sole nihil novum est' - 'there is nothing new under the sun'. I 'invented' the 'stunt' system from Exalted long before it ever went to print. That doesn't mean that I'm particularly gifted, or even that the WW writers are, for that matter. We both/all came up with it ''because it was a good idea''!

	The important thing isn't whether an idea is 'orignal'. It is whether it is innovative. Any 'good ideas' are welcome in OpenD20 so long as they fit into the overall thematic structure, so long as they embody 'simple elegance'. There is no point trying to improve upon something that someone else has already done perfectly well, and there is no point trying to pretend that they have any rights to an idea just because 'they got there first' - it is only copyright infringement if you really are COPYING their ideas, stealing chunks of their text and freeloading off their efforts.		The important thing isn't whether an idea is 'orignal'. It is whether it is innovative. Any 'good ideas' are welcome in OpenD20 so long as they fit into the overall thematic structure, so long as they embody 'simple elegance'. There is no point trying to improve upon something that someone else has already done perfectly well, and there is no point trying to pretend that they have any rights to an idea just because 'they got there first' - it is only copyright infringement if you really are COPYING their ideas, stealing chunks of their text and freeloading off their efforts.
Line 30:		Line 30:
	* Action Points - in all their incarnations. This is an excellent mechanic because if you look at all the 'best' and most popular card or dice games over time, you find that people like games with an ELEMENT of risk, and the chance to succeed if you're clever. In some roleplaying games, there is simply nothing you can do if you roll ten ones in a row. You botch it, plain and simple. Action Points give 'unlucky' players a bit of a saftely net, they help to smooth out gameplay. Action Points are a perfect example of elegant simplicity.		* Action Points - in all their incarnations. This is an excellent mechanic because if you look at all the 'best' and most popular card or dice games over time, you find that people like games with an ELEMENT of risk, and the chance to succeed if you're clever. In some roleplaying games, there is simply nothing you can do if you roll ten ones in a row. You botch it, plain and simple. Action Points give 'unlucky' players a bit of a saftely net, they help to smooth out gameplay. Action Points are a perfect example of elegant simplicity.

	* Incorporated Damage - I've not actually played a system that uses this rule, per se, though I'm sure on exists (see 'sub sole nihil ~~novi~~ est', above). Bascially, the amount of damage done is equal to how much you surpass the target's defense class. This incorporates armour class and damage reduction, it allows warrior-characters to cause exponential damage as their level increases, and it means rolling less dice during combat. Three thumbs up!		* Incorporated Damage - I've not actually played a system that uses this rule, per se, though I'm sure on exists (see 'sub sole nihil novum est', above). Bascially, the amount of damage done is equal to how much you surpass the target's defense class. This incorporates armour class and damage reduction, it allows warrior-characters to cause exponential damage as their level increases, and it means rolling less dice during combat. Three thumbs up!

	* Strike Ranks - may or may not be a part of the combat system. Preliminary play testing suggests that using Strike Ranks speeds up combat by a noticable margin - but it is unknown whether the concept is overly complex for the wider gaming community (in the sense that it is seen as a waste of time to get the hang of it, or places too much 'combat duty' in the hands of individual players). Jury is still out.		* Strike Ranks - may or may not be a part of the combat system. Preliminary play testing suggests that using Strike Ranks speeds up combat by a noticable margin - but it is unknown whether the concept is overly complex for the wider gaming community (in the sense that it is seen as a waste of time to get the hang of it, or places too much 'combat duty' in the hands of individual players). Jury is still out.

Greylond: Rewrote the anti-"rules heavy" point of view about Hackmaster

2006-04-25T19:04:11Z

Rewrote the anti-"rules heavy" point of view about Hackmaster

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:04, 25 April 2006
Line 6:		Line 6:
	OpenD20 is based around the idea of Elegant Simplicity.		OpenD20 is based around the idea of Elegant Simplicity.

	At a certain point, rules get in the way of gameplay - they get in the way of ''fun''. ~~Rules~~ have to be simple enough and broad enough that a game can be played without 'realism' becoming stifling. A very good example for this is the game called Hackmaster. ~~Although there~~ is a community that enjoys playing the game, noted for its over-the-top complex rules systems, these people are enjoying the game because it is a parody, satarising just how ridiculous complex rules systems can be. At a certain point in time, a game can no longer be called a 'roleplaying' game (and becomes a 'roll-playing' game).		Some players believe that at a certain point rules get in the way of gameplay - they get in the way of ''fun''. To these players rules have to be simple enough and broad enough that a game can be played without 'realism' becoming stifling. A very good example for this is the game called Hackmaster. There is a community that enjoys playing the game, noted for its over-the-top complex rules systems, these people are enjoying the game not only because of the fact that it is a parody, satarising just how ridiculous complex rules systems can be but many also state that they like a system that is heavy with rules. To "rules-lite" players there comes a certain point in time, a game can no longer be called a 'roleplaying' game (and becomes a 'roll-playing' game).

	At the same time, too much simplicity creates its own problems. You don't need 'rules' to roleplay. Many 'rules-lite' systems do away with attributes, skills... in fact, all you need is a GM to arbitrate and a group with good imaginations. Dice and Character sheets are superfluous. However, even people with very good imaginations benefit from having a common rules set to help get people on the right wavelength, and to create game balance (there is also an element of fun in the randomness generated by dice).		At the same time, too much simplicity creates its own problems. You don't need 'rules' to roleplay. Many 'rules-lite' systems do away with attributes, skills... in fact, all you need is a GM to arbitrate and a group with good imaginations. Dice and Character sheets are superfluous. However, even people with very good imaginations benefit from having a common rules set to help get people on the right wavelength, and to create game balance (there is also an element of fun in the randomness generated by dice).

204.155.226.2: /* Originality and Innovation */

2006-03-02T14:26:58Z

Originality and Innovation

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:26, 2 March 2006
Line 17:		Line 17:
	Most roleplaying games cover the same material - an armour class, an attack modifier, a system of powers of some description. Every now and again, a game comes up with something new, or approaches an old idea in a new way. An example of this would be the Buffy roleplaying game. The greater Roleplaying community did not warm to the product, as much as they might, but there was a lot of talk about the use of its Action Points system to enable cinematically 'weaker', sidekick style characters to be on the same experience level as the 'hero' characters. Another example would be the 'Dramatic Editing' from games like WW's 'Adventure!'.		Most roleplaying games cover the same material - an armour class, an attack modifier, a system of powers of some description. Every now and again, a game comes up with something new, or approaches an old idea in a new way. An example of this would be the Buffy roleplaying game. The greater Roleplaying community did not warm to the product, as much as they might, but there was a lot of talk about the use of its Action Points system to enable cinematically 'weaker', sidekick style characters to be on the same experience level as the 'hero' characters. Another example would be the 'Dramatic Editing' from games like WW's 'Adventure!'.

	These 'good ideas' are then incorporated into newer versions or expansions sets from other games - for example, the Action Points used in D20 Modern or 'Unearthed Arcana'. Note that Wizards of the Coast did '''not''' copy or steal from these other games - they implemented the ''idea'' in their own fashion, to fit their products. It would only have been copying or stealing if they had coppied the rules verbatim, and actually ~~leached~~ off of other people's work.		These 'good ideas' are then incorporated into newer versions or expansions sets from other games - for example, the Action Points used in D20 Modern or 'Unearthed Arcana'. Note that Wizards of the Coast did '''not''' copy or steal from these other games - they implemented the ''idea'' in their own fashion, to fit their products. It would only have been copying or stealing if they had coppied the rules verbatim, and actually leeched off of other people's work.

	The advantage of OpenD20 is two-fold: First, as we design and evolve this system online, we can add any of the 'good ideas' we want - so long as we can fit them in without things become convoluted.		The advantage of OpenD20 is two-fold: First, as we design and evolve this system online, we can add any of the 'good ideas' we want - so long as we can fit them in without things become convoluted.

144.131.118.159 at 11:13, 13 September 2005

2005-09-13T11:13:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:13, 13 September 2005
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[category:Game System]]		[[category:Game System]]
			[[category:OpenD20]]

	=The Theory of Elegant Simplicity=		=The Theory of Elegant Simplicity=

144.131.118.159 at 08:15, 13 September 2005

2005-09-13T08:15:48Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:15, 13 September 2005
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[category:~~game system~~]]		[[category:Game System]]

	=The Theory of Elegant Simplicity=		=The Theory of Elegant Simplicity=
Line 14:		Line 14:
	=Originality and Innovation=		=Originality and Innovation=

	Most roleplaying games cover the same material - an armour class, an attack modifier, a system of powers of some description. Every now and again, a game comes up with something new, or approaches an old idea in a new way. An example of this would be the Buffy roleplaying game. The greater Roleplaying community did not warm to the product, as much as they might, but ~~their~~ was a lot of talk about the use of its Action Points system to enable cinematically 'weaker', sidekick style characters to be on the same experience level as the 'hero' characters. Another example would be the 'Dramatic Editing' from games like WW's 'Adventure!'.		Most roleplaying games cover the same material - an armour class, an attack modifier, a system of powers of some description. Every now and again, a game comes up with something new, or approaches an old idea in a new way. An example of this would be the Buffy roleplaying game. The greater Roleplaying community did not warm to the product, as much as they might, but there was a lot of talk about the use of its Action Points system to enable cinematically 'weaker', sidekick style characters to be on the same experience level as the 'hero' characters. Another example would be the 'Dramatic Editing' from games like WW's 'Adventure!'.

	These 'good ideas' are then incorporated into newer versions or expansions sets from other games - for example, the Action Points used in D20 Modern or 'Unearthed Arcana'. Note that Wizards of the Coast did '''not''' copy or steal from these other games - they implemented the ''idea'' in their own fashion, to fit their products. It would only have been copying or stealing if they had coppied the rules verbatim, and actually leached off of other people's work.		These 'good ideas' are then incorporated into newer versions or expansions sets from other games - for example, the Action Points used in D20 Modern or 'Unearthed Arcana'. Note that Wizards of the Coast did '''not''' copy or steal from these other games - they implemented the ''idea'' in their own fashion, to fit their products. It would only have been copying or stealing if they had coppied the rules verbatim, and actually leached off of other people's work.
Line 22:		Line 22:
	The other possibility is coming up with brand new innovations. Personally, I believe in the philosophy 'sub sole nihil novi est' - 'there is nothing new under the sun'. I 'invented' the 'stunt' system from Exalted long before it ever went to print. That doesn't mean that I'm particularly gifted, or even that the WW writers are, for that matter. We both/all came up with it ''because it was a good idea''!		The other possibility is coming up with brand new innovations. Personally, I believe in the philosophy 'sub sole nihil novi est' - 'there is nothing new under the sun'. I 'invented' the 'stunt' system from Exalted long before it ever went to print. That doesn't mean that I'm particularly gifted, or even that the WW writers are, for that matter. We both/all came up with it ''because it was a good idea''!

	The important thing isn't whether an idea is 'orignal'. It is whether it is innovative. Any 'good ideas' are welcome in OpenD20 so long as they fit into the overall thematic structure, so long as they embody 'simple elegance'. There is no point trying to improve upon something that someone else has already done perfectly well, and there is no point trying to pretend that they have any rights to an idea just because 'they got there first' - it is only copyright if you really are COPYING their ideas, stealing chunks of text and freeloading off their efforts.		The important thing isn't whether an idea is 'orignal'. It is whether it is innovative. Any 'good ideas' are welcome in OpenD20 so long as they fit into the overall thematic structure, so long as they embody 'simple elegance'. There is no point trying to improve upon something that someone else has already done perfectly well, and there is no point trying to pretend that they have any rights to an idea just because 'they got there first' - it is only copyright infringement if you really are COPYING their ideas, stealing chunks of their text and freeloading off their efforts.

144.131.118.159 at 08:08, 13 September 2005

2005-09-13T08:08:48Z

New page

[[category:game system]]

=The Theory of Elegant Simplicity=

OpenD20 is based around the idea of Elegant Simplicity.

At a certain point, rules get in the way of gameplay - they get in the way of ''fun''. Rules have to be simple enough and broad enough that a game can be played without 'realism' becoming stifling. A very good example for this is the game called Hackmaster. Although there is a community that enjoys playing the game, noted for its over-the-top complex rules systems, these people are enjoying the game because it is a parody, satarising just how ridiculous complex rules systems can be. At a certain point in time, a game can no longer be called a 'roleplaying' game (and becomes a 'roll-playing' game).

At the same time, too much simplicity creates its own problems. You don't need 'rules' to roleplay. Many 'rules-lite' systems do away with attributes, skills... in fact, all you need is a GM to arbitrate and a group with good imaginations. Dice and Character sheets are superfluous. However, even people with very good imaginations benefit from having a common rules set to help get people on the right wavelength, and to create game balance (there is also an element of fun in the randomness generated by dice).

Hence, Elegant Simplicity. In order for the game to be elegant, everything must be defined/accounted for. In order for the game to be simple, everything must be defined/accounted for in the most generic and open way possible - flexibility is key.

=Originality and Innovation=

Most roleplaying games cover the same material - an armour class, an attack modifier, a system of powers of some description. Every now and again, a game comes up with something new, or approaches an old idea in a new way. An example of this would be the Buffy roleplaying game. The greater Roleplaying community did not warm to the product, as much as they might, but their was a lot of talk about the use of its Action Points system to enable cinematically 'weaker', sidekick style characters to be on the same experience level as the 'hero' characters. Another example would be the 'Dramatic Editing' from games like WW's 'Adventure!'.

These 'good ideas' are then incorporated into newer versions or expansions sets from other games - for example, the Action Points used in D20 Modern or 'Unearthed Arcana'. Note that Wizards of the Coast did '''not''' copy or steal from these other games - they implemented the ''idea'' in their own fashion, to fit their products. It would only have been copying or stealing if they had coppied the rules verbatim, and actually leached off of other people's work.

The advantage of OpenD20 is two-fold: First, as we design and evolve this system online, we can add any of the 'good ideas' we want - so long as we can fit them in without things become convoluted.

The other possibility is coming up with brand new innovations. Personally, I believe in the philosophy 'sub sole nihil novi est' - 'there is nothing new under the sun'. I 'invented' the 'stunt' system from Exalted long before it ever went to print. That doesn't mean that I'm particularly gifted, or even that the WW writers are, for that matter. We both/all came up with it ''because it was a good idea''!

The important thing isn't whether an idea is 'orignal'. It is whether it is innovative. Any 'good ideas' are welcome in OpenD20 so long as they fit into the overall thematic structure, so long as they embody 'simple elegance'. There is no point trying to improve upon something that someone else has already done perfectly well, and there is no point trying to pretend that they have any rights to an idea just because 'they got there first' - it is only copyright if you really are COPYING their ideas, stealing chunks of text and freeloading off their efforts.

With that in mind, some of the 'good ideas' that I would like to incorporate into OpenD20 are:

* Action Points - in all their incarnations. This is an excellent mechanic because if you look at all the 'best' and most popular card or dice games over time, you find that people like games with an ELEMENT of risk, and the chance to succeed if you're clever. In some roleplaying games, there is simply nothing you can do if you roll ten ones in a row. You botch it, plain and simple. Action Points give 'unlucky' players a bit of a saftely net, they help to smooth out gameplay. Action Points are a perfect example of elegant simplicity.

* Incorporated Damage - I've not actually played a system that uses this rule, per se, though I'm sure on exists (see 'sub sole nihil novi est', above). Bascially, the amount of damage done is equal to how much you surpass the target's defense class. This incorporates armour class and damage reduction, it allows warrior-characters to cause exponential damage as their level increases, and it means rolling less dice during combat. Three thumbs up!

* Strike Ranks - may or may not be a part of the combat system. Preliminary play testing suggests that using Strike Ranks speeds up combat by a noticable margin - but it is unknown whether the concept is overly complex for the wider gaming community (in the sense that it is seen as a waste of time to get the hang of it, or places too much 'combat duty' in the hands of individual players). Jury is still out.

* Hit Locations - my personal preference is to leave them out and run a very long way away. Hit locations is at odds with abstract defense in combat, so if it comes down to a choice, I am going to have to pick speedy combat over realistic combat. But I don't actually want this to be MY choice - I want everyone who is interested have a say. So this ought to remain open for discussion. Perhaps there should be 'advanced' or 'optional' combat rules? That certainly seems like a good idea to me.

* Verb-Noun Powers system. The Verb-Noun magic system first used in Ars Magica continues to blow me away. I have a lot of ideas about combining this with skills synergy to create the Powers System for OpenD20. More to follow...