Active but non-trappy opening repertoire

When I was lower-rated (1000-1200), I used to play some trappy openings or openings that often gave me an advantage because my opponents would miss early refutation options. I played King's Gambit pet lines, the Leningrad Dutch, the Budapest gambit, the Stafford Gambit, etc.. I found that my rating improved but I was worse at middlegames and endgames than my opponents at that rating and I found my games unsatisfying. I would either trap my opponents or come out with an advantage then struggle to win or end up in an equal position then lose it.

Subsequently I have dialled the repertoire back and my chess has improved over time (currently 1400-1450 at 10:00). I actually find it good to get an equal position and try to play chess. However, I still use some active openings because I enjoy the crazy, gloves off kind of games; plus it is good to practise tactics, which is the weak point.

In some positions I purposely do not take advantage of some of my opponents' mistakes, giving them a chance to transpose into the main line so the game is more equal. This keeps my rating from improving due to tricks, but still feels a little weird.

Ideally I would like to create a repertoire which is active but not trappy. Ideally, my opponent would have many natural lines to choose from but it would still be an active, open game.

Am I asking for the impossible? An active opening without too many concrete lines and one that does not always end up with a similar position/pawn structure?

Maybe I should play more openings, so I can't know them all that well?

Should I just go out of book at every opportunity?

Maybe I should play non-trappy active openings that are objectively slightly worse, so that the gameplay is active but I compensate for the objective disadvantage by being more familiar with the kind of position than my opponent?

I hope you get the gist of my rant. Any kind of advice is appreciated.

@1

"my opponent would have many natural lines to choose from but it would still be an active, open game." ++ Ruy Lopez

"Maybe I should play more openings, so I can't know them all that well?" ++ The less openings you play, the better you know them. The more openings you play, the worse you know them.

"Should I just go out of book at every opportunity?"
++ That is a viable strategy: sacrifice objective soundness for surprise value.

"Maybe I should play non-trappy active openings that are objectively slightly worse, so that the gameplay is active but I compensate for the objective disadvantage by being more familiar with the kind of position than my opponent?" ++ That is a viable strategy.

The truth is, you are asking for too much.  You cannot force active play.  The game is decided by 32 pieces, not 16.

A player playing White cannot say "I am going to play d4 and force a closed position."  There are certain defenses where white trying to lock the position is just outright bad.

A player playing White cannot say "I am going to play an open game by playing 1.e4.  There are lines of the Ruy Lopez even that are very closed in nature.

The same goes for Black.  He can, against 1.e4, play 1...e6, hoping for a blocked position, or 1...e5, hoping for an open position, but White can just as easily play the Exchange or Tarrasch French or Slow Italian and it is just the opposite of Black's "hope".

So there is no way to force anything.  Play the French and you have the Symmetrical Open center (Exchange), IQP for White (Exchange w/ 4.c4), IQP for Black (Tarrasch), Amorphous type center (Anti-Winawer lines), the Blocked center blocking with pawns (Advance, main line Winawer, Steinitz, McCutchen) or with pieces to block d4 (Classical).

Play 1...e5 and you've got the Slow Italian and King's Gambit, just to name the extremes.

Play the Sicilian and you've got the Morra Gambit and the Closed Sicilian.  If White plays the Open Sicilian, and you play, say, the Najdorf, he could play the active 6.Bg5 or the Slow, positional 6.Be2.

The Kings Indian Defense, White can go all out with the 4 pawns attack or purposely Slow down Black's play with the Fianchetto.

So yes, no way to truly guarantee what you are looking for.

You want everything, a variety of pawn structures and active play but at the same time I presume not something of the size of a GM repertoire. Something has to give..

White 1. e4

 1. ..e5 Evans gambit ( option B: four knights )

 1. ..c5 Alapin ( option B: closed )

 1. ..e6 Advance ( option B: Tarrasch )

 1. ..c6 Panov-Botvinnik ( option B: two knights )

For the rest use any repertoire book, the smallest one would be the old Emms book on 1.e4 .

Black vs 1.e4: Caro-Kann but with a twist, play the sharp lines from Sverre's book. Personally speaking, this is too sharp for my taste but I hear it's playable. Option B: the Sveshnikov

Black vs 1. d4: keep the Leningrad. Leningrad specialists, who really know the opening well do great in the sub-GM universe. If you don't like the Leningrad option B) the Tarrasch, it takes a Karpov to accurately execute a light-square symphony with White and if you ever play him, it's entirely O.K. to lose

Don't learn both main suggestion and option B - learn only one, either main suggestion or option B.

I would avoid the Ruy, tons of theory, open, berlin, deferred steinitz, ..f5, marshall attack and the closed includes Chigorin, Breyer, Zaitsev. It's unrealistic to expect to learn all this and imo if you are to take shortcuts ( e.g. Qe2 lines ), you are better off playing something else like the Evans or Italian or Scotch.

White: 1. e4 is the easiest way to get an open game, although it isn't guaranteed.
1... e5: Scotch, learn Classical w/ 5. Nxc6, Schmidt w/ 5. Nxc6, and Malaniuk. Also be prepared for Philidor and Petrov's.
French: Nc3, learn Advance Winawer, Steinitz, and Marshall.
Sicilian: Nf3, learn Chekhover, Westerinen, and Rossolimo.
Caro-Kann: Advance, learn Botvinnik-Carls and Short.
exd5 Nf3 Be2 d4 c4 Nc3 Be3 0-0 Scandinavian, Austrian Pirc, Standard Modern, Four Pawns Alekhine's, Declined Nimzowitsch, c4 d4 Nc3 Nf3 against anything else that doesn't even try to threaten the center.
As Black against 1. e4: Caro-Kann or 1... e5.
As Black against 1. d4: Benko/Benoni or Dutch.

I fell in love with Sicilian/Open Sicilian specifically for this reason. You are playing a dynamic, tactical, aggressive position which is also very solid and sound.

This is my all time favourite opening to play with white:

There are so many tactical opportunites and sacrifices. There are traps as well but it's not hope chess. You are playing solidly and aggressively and can take advantage of opponent's mistakes.

There are some really beautiful queen sacrifices in these lines.

With black I also play Najdorf. I love these positions with both colours.

What you explained just sounds like Open Sicilian through and through.

The King's Indian Defence is basically the same spirit as the Sicilian Defence against d4.

The Sicilian Defence is an opening that you play to win with the black pieces and don't want to accept a draw. The King's Indian Defence is the same against d4.

King's Indian Defence is more closed though. If you want more open, dynamic positions then Grünfeld or Tarrasch Defence are both good.

Against e5, Ruy Lopez. It's often considered more positional but once you get the stable position then you build up a strong kingside attack. It's sort of in the manner of "uncoiling" or breaking out of it's shell.

I would typically avoid the Main Line Berlin with 4. d3 because the Berlin endgame is very dry.

I feel you have a natural proclivity for positional play. Therefore I recommend the Catalan Opening-it seems to tick all the boxes for what you're asking for.

For 1.e4 I'd suggest the Ruy Lopez. But there's more established theory there allowing you to go for very sharp attacks (Marshall, Howell, Worrall, Tal's Re3 line...) or drawish play as in the Berlin.

Ruy Lopez. If they try to make it the closed variation there's a way of stopping it from happening.

Why would you avoid the Closed Ruy Lopez? Like that's basically the whole reason you play the Ruy Lopez (for most people at least).

Exchange Ruy Lopez is playable but it's not that active or exciting. You are just playing a position where you give up the bishop pair for a small structural advantage.

Closed Ruy Lopez is far better for white as you maintain the tension and play for a kingside attack.

Also when you say force pawn trades in the French I assume you mean Exchange French. This is very passive for white as you are playing a very dry, equal, symmetrical position. This is often mocked as it's essentially a line that lower level players use to make a draw with the white pieces.  It's not worth it to avoid a closed structure for this:

It's just so boring.

This is way better:

Or Winawer French, Poisoned Pawn Variation

You get plenty of active play here.

A lot of newer or lower rated players mistake closed positions for boring positions and open positions for exciting positions for some reason, hence why Exchange variations are so popular in every opening despite only being useful for White in the Scotch.
The only difference between Exchange Slav, Caro-Kann, QGD, and French is which pawn you trade off on either side. Every other opening besides those previously mentioned above has at least two better options than the Exchange variation, both of which will lead to more fun positions due to the resulting imbalance and piece activity.

I agree with you about the French, and I merely stated it because the question was how to force an active non-trappy game. Ruy Lopez however is good to do this:

Winning a free pawn and crippling the other player's positioning, while still maintaining an active not-trappy game.

This doesn't win a pawn because of this tactic:

If it actually won a pawn then everyone would play it. This is very bad for white.

Yeah, it just depends on the position. King's Indian is considered one of the most aggressive defences and is typically a closed position. Open positions are very tactical and aggressive when there is a strong imbalance.

I like the Panov Attack against the Caro Kann for this.

The reason why the Exchange Ruy Lopez is more passive is because you give up the bishop pair in an open position. Without the bishop pair, you can't take advantage of the position being open. The position is open much more favourably for black in this case.

Or If you don't take the pawn:

"If it actually won a pawn then everyone would play it."

It either wins a pawn or position so everyone should play it.

It IS bad. You give up the bishop pair for 0 compensation and lose castling rights. Even though you castle manually, it's just wasting tempo for no reason. The doubled pawns are not that bad compared to being without the bishop pair in an open position. You also played innaccurate moves for black.

In the 2nd line you presented these are not the best moves for black but even then, white is still actually worse. In the final position the e4 pawn is hanging anyway.

Exchange Ruy Lopez is ok if you don't take the pawn but it's much more passive than the main line.

But it doesn't. It doesn't win a pawn and the position favors black. It's playable but reaching a playable position shouldn't be your goal out of the opening.