Hello, everyone. I've been working on a rules medium to heavy (depending on your perspective) generic game called "Tribute" for 12 years- most of that time was research and experimentation. I've finally gotten it to the point where I could run it myself. Still left are the chapters that will make it easier for others to do that.

The thing is, It's a very different approach to an RPG and I'm not sure if I'm getting the ideas across effectively; the game's rules are like legos or tinker toys- you combine them to model whatever you need, from Powers, to equipment, to characters, and even subsystems like genre tropes. These pieces are called "Elements". The whole thing is like a relatively simple programming language for building a campaign.

I have a huge favor to ask; I know this game is not for everyone...it's mainly for me and people like me...but if any of this sounds like something that wouldn't make your eyes bleed, I was wondering if anyone could read the introduction and the first two chapters and tell me if I'm explaining things well enough, or what I might need to do to get this information across more effectively. The last chapter is very dense and long- it's every mechanic in the game in one place-but hopefully it shows the game's potential and power.

If anyone does read it, keep in mind that it's for an upcoming playtest. Details will change as needed.

Here's the link, and I appreciate any feedback you might have, unless your feedback is that no one should play rules medium/heavy games and that I'm a bad person for working on one.

I'm not concerned with polish at this point- I just need to get the information across.

Thanks.

... okay. So I looked.

First off, I'm going to tell you upfront, I appreciate your obvious work you put into even this small amount of sneak-peak, but what you have here is a Heartbreaker of pretty large proportions.

You spent the *entire* first few pages explaining what the system is supposed to be, what it can do without specifics, where its inspired from, blah blah blah - before you even get to the meat. You need to *get to the meat*<--- see that?

You're *way* over-explaining things. A Heartbreaker hallmark. And I don't think this is medium-complexity, this is a just heavy-complexity and fairly over-wrought imo. And I'm pretty generous for what I like in crunch (I'm a HUGE toolbox fan and you'll see me touting Fantasy Craft a LOT, for instance).

But I'm not seeing your goal here. There is no mechanic that is expressing itself in some novel way that I can't get in another toolkit system, that is more accessible. Does that make sense? Streamline this.

Also - this is probably the wrong forum for this post. (there's a Development forum, so's ya know)

Chapter 2 reads like a computer sciences handbook:

These categories are Values, Licenses, Permits, Functions (and Tweaks), Approaches, Powers (and Burdens), and Sources.
The Permit Elements are VOID, DODGE, TRIGGER, CHANCE, INFLUENCE, DEMAND, and MARK.

Do I have to remember how each one works to play this game?

Thanks for the feedback, re: streamlining. I'll be doing that after playtesting. Right now I have a lot of machine parts just to make sure the thing works. later I'll be able to remove the patches and fix the parts that are truly essential.

As for the hype; a lot of that was for me- I wrote that when I was trying to keep myself motivated. I've edited it since, and it's grown a bit out of control. The other chapters are the meat. And a lot of bone.

Quote from: Frey;864915Chapter 2 reads like a computer sciences handbook:

These categories are Values, Licenses, Permits, Functions (and Tweaks), Approaches, Powers (and Burdens), and Sources.
The Permit Elements are VOID, DODGE, TRIGGER, CHANCE, INFLUENCE, DEMAND, and MARK.

Do I have to remember how each one works to play this game?

The game's core system is basically a programming language for campaigns. so the computer science comparison is apt, and intentional.

You don't have to memorize their mechanics right away, but you do need to learn their names to play, or at least be able to guess at their basic meaning when they come up.  When a rules issue arises, you can look them up until you learn them. Most of their rules are at best a few paragraphs.

This game is for people who want to build things with a toolkit that gets them a model of exactly what they imagined.

I was a bit daunted by your preamble. It read more like a justification as to why your system should exist and where you're mind is at on the state of role-playing games. While its certainly agreeable that an author should include an introduction, I'd recommend pairing it down to one page at best. I feel the What Sets Tribute Apart is really where you should focus.

Now, with that being said, I am intrigued by the Elements keyword system. I am digging into chapter one now.

edit - I just completed chapter one. Everybody else gave pretty good critical feedback, however I would really recommend you begin to punctate narrative, story-based information between the mechanics. It's a lot to take in, without a narrative reference point to anchor them to. I mean, I see the intention but have no idea how to conjugate it into actual gameplay.

Quote from: ZWEIHÄNDER;864941I was a bit daunted by your preamble. It read more like a justification as to why your system should exist and where you're mind is at on the state of role-playing games. While its certainly agreeable that an author should include an introduction, I'd recommend pairing it down to one page at best. I feel the What Sets Tribute Apart is really where you should focus.

I'm going to see what I can do to fix that section, or simply delete it for the playtest period. It seems counterproductive.

QuoteNow, with that being said, I am intrigued by the Elements keyword system. I am digging into chapter one now.

Thanks. The Elements support the whole reason for the game- abstract tools designed to handle similar situations using the same rules regardless of context.

The reason  for the game is to have a generic RPG that "shapeshifts" to become what you need for your campaign. Systems like the core dice mechanic itself are built from, and can be addressed and altered by the Elements, which is something I was planning to leave for the second book.

Quoteedit - I just completed chapter one. Everybody else gave pretty good critical feedback, however I would really recommend you begin to punctate narrative, story-based information between the mechanics. It's a lot to take in, without a narrative reference point to anchor them to. I mean, I see the intention but have no idea how to conjugate it into actual gameplay.

Really good call. It will significantly lengthen things, but it seems like it would really help.

Based on the feedback I'm getting here and elsewhere, I am definitely seeing the need to simplify things....but I know that with my way of doing things, that will lead to months of second guessing and moving in circles as I change the Elements around. I'm going to bite the bullet and try to run it as is at least once wit ha few of my charitable friends.

I do have some ideas percolating on how to streamline things, though. I'll jot these down as they come to me, but not change the files on the site for now.

Jesus Christ, my brain just shorted out ... and as a GURPS GM for thirty years now, I'm not precisely intolerant of crunch.

But I'm with Tenbones -- there are a lot of systems out there that deliver crunch and modularity while managing to be a good bit less impenetrable.

Beyond that, if you're going to name this "Tribute Essentials," I expect to see the irreducible minimum needed to start an adventure.  When the intro is 30% sales pitch, 30% predictions of future writings and 40% Why-I-Did-It-This-Way-And-Not-That, someone expecting "essentials" is likely to be turned off.

I wish you luck, but I don't see this being any more than a boutique micro-indie that a dozen people download/buy and less than half that many run for more than a session or two.

Quote from: Ravenswing;864952Jesus Christ, my brain just shorted out ... and as a GURPS GM for thirty years now, I'm not precisely intolerant of crunch.

But I'm with Tenbones -- there are a lot of systems out there that deliver crunch and modularity while managing to be a good bit less impenetrable.

Beyond that, if you're going to name this "Tribute Essentials," I expect to see the irreducible minimum needed to start an adventure.  When the intro is 30% sales pitch, 30% predictions of future writings and 40% Why-I-Did-It-This-Way-And-Not-That, someone expecting "essentials" is likely to be turned off.

I wish you luck, but I don't see this being any more than a boutique micro-indie that a dozen people download/buy and less than half that many run for more than a session or two.

Thanks. I will definitely pare down the intro.

As for the rest, this is not even an alpha version of the game. I've said this elsewhere, but what I want it to become is a Swiss watch, and right now, I recognize that it's a jalopy. The point at this stage is proof of concept, even with a lot of pain in playing and running it. The final game will certainly be very different in its presentation. I just have to streamline it (later) and figure out how to relate this particular kind of game and information without losing people. I'm in uncharted waters with this; I don't have examples of successful element-based games to draw from.

I haven't looked at it yet but let me toss out a couple anecdotes.

1. The reason I like GURPS and Hero is because in the early 80's I wanted a game where the players could design/build any character they want. I wanted to run a game where a fantasy wizard is partnered with a superhero, a space captain and a grizzled police detective. They would all be effective characters and the system could handle them all easily. At the time there were no games I knew of that could do that. All games were single-genre RPGs and the rules were mostly incompatible. When GURPS and Hero came out I finally had what I wanted. (One thing which prompted this desire was an article in the first Best of Dragon Magazine which featured fantasy characters taking on a Nazi fort. That sort of mishmash sounded cool to me. After that I so wanted a campaign where a Top Secret spy could work with a AD&D guy and a Star Frontiers guy all under one umbrella rule system.)

So my question to you would simply be: Can your game do that? Can the players make characters of any genre and the system will work smoothly?

2. I have friends who, sorta, made their own game. They started with Runequest (I think) and kept on tweaking it until they had a near-future cyberpunk game with limited super powers. It took them years of tweaking and testing and debating to do this. Primarily two guys led the project but several others playtested and helped out. They went so far with the changes it isn't even recognizable as the early 80's Runequest system they started with. What I'm getting at: you should have at least one close partner to bounce ideas off of and argue with. Also, it might be best to start with a known point and work from there.

Hope this helps.

Quote from: Doughdee222;864968I haven't looked at it yet but let me toss out a couple anecdotes.

1. The reason I like GURPS and Hero is because in the early 80's I wanted a game where the players could design/build any character they want. I wanted to run a game where a fantasy wizard is partnered with a superhero, a space captain and a grizzled police detective. They would all be effective characters and the system could handle them all easily. At the time there were no games I knew of that could do that. All games were single-genre RPGs and the rules were mostly incompatible. When GURPS and Hero came out I finally had what I wanted. (One thing which prompted this desire was an article in the first Best of Dragon Magazine which featured fantasy characters taking on a Nazi fort. That sort of mishmash sounded cool to me. After that I so wanted a campaign where a Top Secret spy could work with a AD&D guy and a Star Frontiers guy all under one umbrella rule system.)

So my question to you would simply be: Can your game do that? Can the players make characters of any genre and the system will work smoothly?

Absolutely. The game is completely genre agnostic, not even going as far as having a default magic system. Everyone's Powers (Tribute's name for almost any ability- even skills) can work differently and play well together. That's what the Elements are for.

Quote2. I have friends who, sorta, made their own game. They started with Runequest (I think) and kept on tweaking it until they had a near-future cyberpunk game with limited super powers. It took them years of tweaking and testing and debating to do this. Primarily two guys led the project but several others playtested and helped out. They went so far with the changes it isn't even recognizable as the early 80's Runequest system they started with. What I'm getting at: you should have at least one close partner to bounce ideas off of and argue with. Also, it might be best to start with a known point and work from there.

Hope this helps.

That ship has sailed, 12 years ago. I have tried to get others to help with the project but it's based on concepts from my interpretation of Lurianic Kabbalah, so finding people who get and appreciate that and also know game mechanics is hard.

As an aside, I'm thinking that it might be interesting if there was a choose-your-own-adventure with a very simply pregen in place of the current intro. It might be a way to ease people into learning the game- I can explain the rules as they come up. I'd just have to figure out a way to embed that into the Intro page in Wordpress, and display the character sheet alongside it.  I'll think about it.

Oh. My. God.

You're trying to Keyword (words that come with their own rule structure, hotkeyed into a push-button jargon) language.

And you want people to build phrases and sentences out of that pool of Keyworded language to create imagined reality.

You want people to speak as the Voice of Creation with already agreed upon rules attached to each Elemented Word.

This is like trying to speak in Exalted Charm conjunctions, but longer, and to resolve everything. You've divorced language from its access to breadth of interpretation and requisite necessity for listener judgment, and handed the keys over to munchkinism as a "reality CPU programming" argument of its own, all in one fell swoop. This is ambitious, yet will not end well.

:hmm: Best of luck!

Quote from: Opaopajr;864974Oh. My. God.

You're trying to Keyword (words that come with their own rule structure, hotkeyed into a push-button jargon) language.

And you want people to build phrases and sentences out of that pool of Keyworded language to create imagined reality.

You want people to speak as the Voice of Creation with already agreed upon rules attached to each Elemented Word.

This is like trying to speak in Exalted Charm conjunctions, but longer, and to resolve everything. You've divorced language from its access to breadth of interpretation and requisite necessity for listener judgment, and handed the keys over to munchkinism as a "reality CPU programming" argument of its own, all in one fell swoop. This is ambitious, yet will not end well.

:hmm: Best of luck!

I love this. I know the game's not for everyone, and will never be, but you do seem to get it, minus the intent to create munchkins.

I wanted to say one thing.

I checked the site's metrics to see who was checking out the game, and I have to say that the most traffic is coming from here, as well as the majority of the comments.

This certainly wouldn't be a good thing if my goal was to advertise the game  or build an audience- the feedback is generally that it's not ready for prime time...but the point is, you are all telling me what I need to hear, rather than what I might want. Few other people are giving me that courtesy. I really appreciate it.

I still want to playtest it before streamlining it, but if I've turned off my playtest volunteers, I might not have a choice. I sent them the link, and never heard back...

Well, let's get to the heart of the braking mechanisms (as in reins to power against player overreach).

If players speak in "rules accepted programming code" to "manifest intentions," then at what point, and to which degree, does the GM/server have the power to say "No" for the sake of setting and game? Basically, if you as a player code it right, where does the GM have the power to tell you to stop? Or is this Organized Play redux, now with a programming language as user communication interface?

Quote from: Opaopajr;864980Well, let's get to the heart of the braking mechanisms (as in reins to power against player overreach).

If players speak in "rules accepted programming code" to "manifest intentions," then at what point, and to which degree, does the GM/server have the power to say "No" for the sake of setting and game? Basically, if you as a player code it right, where does the GM have the power to tell you to stop? Or is this Organized Play redux, now with a programming language as user interface?

Most of the time, the GM will do the coding, and/or approval of Player coding. Since it's all pure mechanics,  the same effect might model gunfire, or a lightning bolt, with a few differences in details. The Power levels are (hopefully) very firmly capped by the system and laid out at the start of a campaign, and if they aren't that will be my intent after testing. A lot of the disputes that could arise at the table regarding intricately coded Effects will be about differences in genre and campaign expectations, so I hope to make it clear that the group will need to lay their expectations out on the table.

Prebuilding things like skills and spells to buy off the rack should help with this.

The goal of the system is to take the joy out of attempting to exploit the system, since I'm doing my damndest to avoid feedback loops towards munchkinland. The fun of this kind of mechanical engagement comes instead from (ideally) the ability ot model what you want to model without compromise.