[Cornerstone] Introduction

[Paganini]

Greetings! I'm a new user on the forge (check out my profile if you're interested), but I'd bet that I know a lot of you from other RPG-related lists around the internet. I was introduced to the forge by Raven Daegmorgan. Since it seems that a lot of folks here share similar philosophies to that of my latest game idea I thought I'd post it here for feedback.

This is a rough abstract / summary of the system that has yet to be polished into an actual *game.*

I want to know if there's anything that you think would be appropriate to add to the system. In one section I also noted a potential problem with combat damage... any suggestions for fixing it (or rationalizations of why it works okay the way it is) will be eagerly reviewed. :smile:

Here we go... it may seem a bit long, but it's really very simple, so I hope lots of people will read and comment on it.

Descriptors are used to represent anything in the game. Descriptors can be jobs, roles, qualities, skills, etc., anything that defines the thing being rated. Descriptors are given a numerical rating. Negative descriptors represent weaknesses or disadvantages, while positive descriptors represent advantages or strengths. Zero level descriptors represent a minimal level of competence... not enough for a bonus, but enough to attempt an action that requires such a descriptor. Characters and items have many implicit zero level descriptors that depend on the game world and genre conventions. These "common" descriptors represent universal ability... in most games "running" would be a universal zero level descriptor. Anyone can always try to run, even if they don't get any bonuses. However, there are also lots of descriptors that are NOT common descriptors (neurosurgery). Actions that require these descriptors may not be attempted unless the character has at least zero level listed on his character sheet.

Actions are resolved by rolling 1d10 and adding as many descriptors as possible. If it's not obvious why a descriptor would apply, then the player must convincingly narrate why the descriptor would help the character in the situation. (Conversely, the GM must narrate why a particular negative descriptor would hinder the character in a situation). If the GM is not satisfied, the character doesn't get the bonus. Opposed actions consist of each character involved making such a roll... the character with the higher result wins. A tied roll indicates an impasse (an actual tie) unless such a situation doesn't make sense in the context of the scene. In this case, both characters re-roll until the tie is broken. For unopposed actions, simply replace one character's roll with a target (difficulty) number chosen by the GM:

5 Normal (50% chance for a zero level descriptor total)
10 A Bit Tricky (50% chance for a +5 descriptor total)
15 Very Difficult (50% chance for a +10 descriptor total)
20 Practically impossible (50% chance for a +15 descriptor total)
etc. into infinity...

The higher powered the game, the more difficulty ranks you will need. Just keep counting by fives.

When a character wants to take multiple actions simultaneously (fighting multiple opponents, for example) he must divide his available descriptors among the different actions. He still gets to make a separate die roll for each action, however.

Contests are handled like opposed actions, with a slight difference: After each roll, the loser loses a number of descriptor bonuses equal to the difference in rolls. When he runs out of descriptors, (i.e., goes into the negatives), he loses the contest, and takes damage equal to the number of negative descriptor points he was driven to.

Example: Boron (Really Strong +5, Axe Fighter +3) is fighting Hannar (Fencer +2)

Boron rolls his d10 and gets a 3. Adding Boron's descriptor total of 8 is 11. Hannar rolls and gets a 10 (!) (Yes, I really did just roll it...) giving him a total of 12. Hannar beats Boron by 1 point, meaning that next round Boron can only add 7 to his roll. Hannar still has a long way to go to beat Boron, though. He'd be well advised to try and find some clever way to equal the playing field (for example, distracting Boron by engaging him in a battle of wits, in which Hannar's Snappy Comeback +6 descriptor will be useful).

Now, let's say that in the last example Boron rolled a 6 instead of a 3, and Hannar rolled a 4. Boron's total is 14, while Hannar's total is 6. Hannar loses 8 points of descriptor bonus, driving him to negative 6! Hannar loses the fight, and takes 6 damage in the process.

After the combat is over, the amount of damage sustained must be distributed among the losing character's descriptors. Technically, the losing player may do this however he wishes, although it would be appropriate for the GM to require an explanation of how the battle effects the usefulness of the descriptor. In the above example, Hannar took 6 points of damage... therefore he may elect to lower his Snappy Comeback descriptor to zero, or his Fencer descriptor to -4, or any combination that totals 6. (For example, he could lower his Fencer descriptor to 0 and his Snappy Comeback descriptor to 2.)

These lowerings are only temporary. Descriptors recover at a set (as yet to be determined) healing rate.

Note that contests need not be actual physical combat... duels of will, debates, and so on can all be covered by contests. In this case, the damage lost doesn't actually represent physical damage, but damage to psyche, ego, confidence, and so on.

Potential Problem: The winner of a combat never takes any damage.

Character creation: each character has 10 points with which to buy descriptors. A +1 descriptor costs 1 point, a +2 descriptor costs 2 points, etc. Negative descriptors give back points, so you can have as many descriptors as you want as long as the total adds up to 10. Of course, the GM has to approve any descriptors for the game. Omnipotent +10 might not be acceptable for many games.

The GM may controll the power level of the game by increasing or decreasing the number of starting descriptor points, and by broadening or narrowing the scope of the descriptors allowed.

Descriptors are not limited in use to characters. Descriptors can be applied to many things. For example, a rapier might have the descriptors "Piercing +2" and "Not effective against plate armor -5." The GM has complete control over how much detail he wants in the game. Frex, a certain kind of armor might be "Protects against cuts +3," "does not stop blunt weapons -4," "reduces agility -2." Or it could just be "Light armor +2," whichever the GM prefers. You could even have different levels of detail from player to player if you allow players to create their own gear. It would be just like creating characters, with the piece of equipment having a set point total to meet.


_________________
-- Paganini

[All kinds of cool stuff that won't fit into the Forge's 255 char sig limit.]

[ This Message was edited by: Paganini on 2001-12-29 14:29 ]

[hardcoremoose]

Hey there,

Interesting.  Immediately brings to mind Story Engine and Universalis.  I'm not sure that these are anything but superficial comparisons, but in the case of the latter, it has the very cool mechanic whereby players can describe anything in the game much the same way you do with Descriptors.  I like that alot.

I'm tempted to suggest that you use a Fortune-at-the-Front mechanic, although it might require some rethinking of the mechanics.  What I mean by FatF is that I  would like to see a game where the players roll their 1d10 - no stated intent at all - and then begin adding in their descriptors, narrating as they go how those descriptors apply and what they ultimately mean to the event at hand.  Like I said, this has the inherent problem of knowing when to draw the line, but it sounds like fun to me.

Putting aside my rather selfish suggestion, the idea sounds cool.  I'll think on your combat problem a bit and see if anything comes to mind.  I wouldn't worry too much about a fixed healing rate either - something loose and flexible would work fine, considering just how open your definition of "damage" is.

Overall, very cool.  Glad to see you at The Forge!  :smile:

Scott

[Paganini]

Hey Scott, nice to meet you! Thanks for your positive reaction. :smile:

On 2001-12-29 14:48, hardcoremoose wrote:

I'm tempted to suggest that you use a Fortune-at-the-Front mechanic, although it might require some rethinking of the mechanics.  What I mean by FatF is that I  would like to see a game where the players roll their 1d10 - no stated intent at all - and then begin adding in their descriptors, narrating as they go how those descriptors apply and what they ultimately mean to the event at hand.  Like I said, this has the inherent problem of knowing when to draw the line, but it sounds like fun to me.

Interesting idea, but I'm not sure exactly how you'd go about applying it in play. Maybe you could give some examples of what you have in mind? I'm wondering when exactly the players would make rolls if there's no stated intent involved.



Maybe something like a single roll per scene, with whatever the character does during that scene adding descriptors to the roll? That might actually work... before each scene starts everyone would make a roll, and stick with that roll through the entire scene. Could really speed up play, and it sounds perfect for a cinematic / movie style of game, where the action is broken up into discrete segments.

[Mike Holmes]

Hello Pagannini, violinist?

Anyhow, the problem with damage is easily solved. Saying the first person to negative loses doesn't make much sense. It's like saying that nobody ever fights after being wounded. Simply let the process continue if the player at negative likes, taking the total negative amount as penalties to further rolls. If I then attack using the same tactic again next turn after being wounded, I will have a total of minus two as I've already burned the other descriptors. But if I now change to that battle of wits, then I'll be +6-2 = +4.

"As Boron wounds the fencer, Hannar stumbles back and, thinking quickly, taunts the barbarian hoping to get his opponent to bellow with rage in order to create an opening in which to make a feeble attack."

Anyhow, a character can submit at any time. If his total negative modifiers reach ten, then the charcter is out of action (as he can no longer produce a positive result on te roll). This means death or unconciousness at the GM or attackers whim.

For greater complexity, require "will" rolls to remain concious, "tougness" rolls to avoid death, "first aid" rolls to aid touhness rolls, etc.

Another idea would be to allow the character to take a wound instead of losing points of descriptor. The player would recieve one wound per two (or part thereof) descriptor points he was scheduled to lose. This means he loses effectivness in the fight less quickly, but has the penalty for all actions (that the wound makes sense for) until healed.

This last idea only works under the assumption that his descriptor pool will be refreshed after the combat is over. But it does mean that players will tend to wound themselves in climactic battles. Which sounds cool.

Mike

[Paganini]

On 2001-12-29 17:22, Mike Holmes wrote:
Hello Pagannini, violinist?

Yes indeed, nice catch. :smile:

Anyhow, the problem with damage is easily solved. Saying the first person to negative loses doesn't make much sense. It's like saying that nobody ever fights after being wounded.
[\quote]

Let me clarify the rationalization for that rule. The idea I had was not that characters stop as soon as they get damaged, but that the combat ends when a breakpoint is reached (the character runs out of descriptors). Then the damage from the combat is determined retroactively from the amount that the character went negative. So, even though damage isn't determined until the combat is over, the damage could have occurred at any point during the fight, even in the first few seconds... the character just managed to hold off the effects for a long time. This narration effect is completely up to the GM and players. However, your post gives me an idea... keep reading. :smile:

Anyhow, a character can submit at any time. If his total negative modifiers reach ten, then the charcter is out of action (as he can no longer produce a positive result on te roll). This means death or unconciousness at the GM or attackers whim.

My first reaction to this was "yes, but you've just moved the breakpoint from 0 to -10." But thinking about it gave me an idea... damage could be tracked in real time, but distributed after the combat. What I mean is, at the start of the fight scene the player decides what descriptors he can apply, convincing the GM with narration as neccesary. These descriptors are added into a lump "descriptor bonus" sum. The amount of damage you take is equal to the amount of this that you lose. So, frex, let's say Boron has a total descriptor bonus of +6 and Hannar has a total descriptor bonus of +2. Hannar somehow manages to beat Boron's roll by 3 points (Maybe Hannar rolled an 8, but Boron rolled a 1). Boron must subtract three from his lump some, reducing it to +3. Next turn Boron hits Hannar for 4 points of damage, reducing his bonus to -2, ending the fight. (Hannar is out of descriptors.) But rather than just saying that Hannar takes 2 points worth of damage to his descriptors, BOTH characters now have to distribute ALL the damage that they sustained through the combat... this means that Boron has to lose 3 descriptor levels, and Hannar has to lose 4. Are you following me? I appologize if this seems disorganized... I'm sort of thinking it through as I type.

Another idea would be to allow the character to take a wound instead of losing points of descriptor. The player would recieve one wound per two (or part thereof) descriptor points he was scheduled to lose. This means he loses effectivness in the fight less quickly, but has the penalty for all actions (that the wound makes sense for) until healed.

This last idea only works under the assumption that his descriptor pool will be refreshed after the combat is over. But it does mean that players will tend to wound themselves in climactic battles. Which sounds cool.

At first glance I didn't like this at all, but the more I think about it the better it gets. You could easily have a wounding scale that tracks damage based on the margin of success of the role... If a character loses a roll by three, he could choose to lose three points from his descriptor total, or to take a three point wound. This makes for some really cool gameplay situations, where characters stick in the fight getting really beat up, but not going down because they don't run out of descriptors.

[Cynthia Celeste Miller]

Descriptors are used to represent anything in the game. Descriptors can be jobs, roles, qualities, skills, etc., anything that defines the thing being rated. Descriptors are given a numerical rating. Negative descriptors represent weaknesses or disadvantages, while positive descriptors represent advantages or strengths. Zero level descriptors represent a minimal level of competence... not enough for a bonus, but enough to attempt an action that requires such a descriptor. Characters and items have many implicit zero level descriptors that depend on the game world and genre conventions.

Of course I'm in favor of this idea.  It's somewhat similar to the Trait system in Cartoon Action Hour.  lol.  There are differences though.  In CAH, there is a distinct list of Traits to choose from, so yours is more variable than that.

The scale in CAH, is from -4 to +4.  Superhuman levels are handled by a "super-rating", which is included in parenthesis beside the one appropriate Trait rating (I must note that only Traits with 4 can have a super-rating).

Normally, the player rolls a d12 and adds his character's Trait rating to the result.  If you meet or beat the difficulty number, you succeed.  If you have a super-rating though, you roll a number of d12's equal to the super-rating itself, choosing the highest rolling die.

The reason I babbled on about this is that I'm curious how you handle super-human abilities.  Simply a higher number?  Or some kind of scaling mechanic?  I'm just curious.

After the combat is over, the amount of damage sustained must be distributed among the losing character's descriptors.

While the idea of doing it "by the scene" rather than "by the action" sounds spiffy, I think it generalizes combat unnecessarily.  Perhaps dividing the scene up into several segments would work?  This would give more variance to the combat system and would allow for a clear breakdown, at which point damage could be allocated (i.e. at the end of each segment).  Just an idea.

Technically, the losing player may do this however he wishes, although it would be appropriate for the GM to require an explanation of how the battle effects the usefulness of the descriptor. In the above example, Hannar took 6 points of damage... therefore he may elect to lower his Snappy Comeback descriptor to zero, or his Fencer descriptor to -4, or any combination that totals 6. (For example, he could lower his Fencer descriptor to 0 and his Snappy Comeback descriptor to 2.)

If you go this route, I'd recommend requiring a certain amount of the damage to come from physical descriptors to show physical wear and tear, not to mention wounds.  Obviously, this should only apply to physical combats and such.

Likewise, a mental combat (psionic stuff) should require so much damage come from mental descriptors.

I know that "damage" doesn't represent necessarily physical damage, but in a real fight it makes sense for at least some physical attrition to occur.

Potential Problem: The winner of a combat never takes any damage.

You could always require a specific roll to determine damage to the winner.  Again, if you broke things down into segments, this would be less of a problem, since it's not a "winner take all" situation.  After all, the overall winner may lose in one of the segments, thus taking damage.

Descriptors are not limited in use to characters. Descriptors can be applied to many things.

I like this concept.  It really unifies everything nicely.  Nice and simple.  And I'm a big fan of keeping things streamlined, much to Brian Gleichman's chagrin.  (looooooooong story!)

[contracycle]

Hiya, I would recommend a read of the HeroWars basic rules which I think will give a good framework for this sort of thing.

Damage: Yes, work it out mechanically afterward, and limit your descriptions of damage to things that are not immediately terminal.  This is an important concept of herowars - describe the kind of injury in a fairly abstract way, like "Borons axe opens up a red line alongs Hannars arm".  Then, AFTER the action is decided by the dice, you "figure out" how severe the injury "must have been".

Essentially, this means holding back on concrete descriptions of fatal or incapacitating blows until the final, decisive roll.  Thus, a combatant can accrue injuries without these necessarily having been fatal; they can be loosely described for any defeat, if you choose.

So, one way of looking at the way this works is with the issue of a poisoned weapon.  Many games would roll until there is a hit, and then determine what effect the poison is.  However, under this approach, the final blow IS necessarily the blow that introduced the fatal poison.  Thus, the poisons effect is modelled as say a weapon bonus to reflect the fact that the fighter does not need to strike as significant a blow.  But, what if the poison is not likely to be immediately fatal?  Then, the poisoning blow might occur near the start of the fight, and the effects narrated for "colour" to explain the loss of points (the defeat in the exchange) - which might not happen immediately (or more accurately, be perceptible immediately).

You can also do stuff with determining if a given exchange constitutes only a shift in advantage or an actual contact.  This could be used in the poisoned weapon example above.  This would give you more concrete wound numbers.

Another consideration here is the whole "consequences of failure" idea; as was pointed out in another thread IIRC, actual die-rolling failure in a combat against, say, a horde of zombies might be narrated as the defeat of the current zombie opponent, but that more zombies stumble into view (apply to any basic horde critter).

[Paganini]

The reason I babbled on about this is that I'm curious how you handle super-human abilities.  Simply a higher number?  Or some kind of scaling mechanic?  I'm just curious.

However the GM wants. :wink:

What I had in mind is that for superpowers the GM would simply allow characters to attempt superhuman things. You see, the descriptors really are descriptive. You could have a descriptor like "Superhuman Strength +5," and the GM would allow you to attempt superhuman strength-based tasks, setting difficulty levels as he thinks appropriate. This is why communication between players and GM is important in this sort of a system... the GM has to know just how superhuman the character is supposed to be.

I recently added an "intensity" mechanic that could compliment this. When a player wants to give a character a descriptor, the GM assigns an intensity rating to the descriptor based on how powerful it's likely to be in the game. The more powerful the ability, the higher the intensity rating. The intensity rating is multiplied by the desired level of the descriptor being taken. So, frex, the GM might decide that a Superman type "Invulnerable" trait is potentially game unbalancing and assign it an intensity of 10... it would cost a character 10 points just to have this descriptor at the +1 level.

If you go this route, I'd recommend requiring a certain amount of the damage to come from physical descriptors to show physical wear and tear, not to mention wounds.  Obviously, this should only apply to physical combats and such.

Yeah... but I'm not convinced that there must be actual physical damage in combat. The GM might require somehting like this in his personal game. But, for example, recall the duel between Inigo and Wesley in "The Princess Bride." Neither of them actually damaged the other, it ended with Inigo falling to his knees and imploring Wesly to "Kill me quickly!" Inigo took confidence damage. In game terms, his Dashingly Superb Fencer +8 was dropped down to zero as he was emotionaly overwhelmed by the great skill of his opponent.

I like this concept.  It really unifies everything nicely.  Nice and simple.  And I'm a big fan of keeping things streamlined, much to Brian Gleichman's chagrin.  (looooooooong story!)

But I want the story, because I've heard the name. :smile:

[Cynthia Celeste Miller]

Yeah... but I'm not convinced that there must be actual physical damage in combat. The GM might require somehting like this in his personal game. But, for example, recall the duel between Inigo and Wesley in "The Princess Bride." Neither of them actually damaged the other, it ended with Inigo falling to his knees and imploring Wesly to "Kill me quickly!" Inigo took confidence damage. In game terms, his Dashingly Superb Fencer +8 was dropped down to zero as he was emotionaly overwhelmed by the great skill of his opponent.

While I partially agree to this, I feel that if the Inigo/Wesley battle was carried out in your system, Inigo would have indeed lost some points in an agility-like descriptor (which explains to some degree why he wasn't as active during the very last of the duel), an endurance-like descriptor (which is why he seemingly pooped out) and a more mental descriptor (as he was extremely flustered).

No, he wasn't damaged, but fatigue and attrition had helped take it's toll on him.

But I want the story, because I've heard the name. :smile:

Well, let's just say he and I have exactly polar opposite ideologies on rpg's....in every way imaginable.  And we've butted heads on several occasions.  

* He prefers rules-heavy.....I prefer rules-lite.

* He thinks there's no point in more than one rules-lite system on the market.....I think there's plenty of room for scads of rules-lite rpg's.

* He judges rpg's on the tactical options available.....I don't

* He doesn't feel a system can really cater specifically to a setting/genre....I feel that a system designed solely to capture the feel of a genre/setting can be highly effective.

The list goes on and on.  The truth is that there is no right or wrong viewpoints....but ours just seem to clash.

But, I'm not trying to badmouth anyone.  =0)



[/quote]

_________________
Cynthia Celeste Miller
-Spectrum Game Studios

[ This Message was edited by: Cynthia Celeste Miller on 2001-12-31 10:56 ]

[joshua neff]

Yo, CC!

* He prefers rules-lite.....I prefer rules-heavy

Don't you have that backwards? As far as I know, Gleichman despises "rules-lite". He's pretty vocal about it, actually.

[Cynthia Celeste Miller]

Yep, I edited it immediately after I posted it.  lol.  Biiiiiiiiiiiiig goof up.  ;0)