The Forge Archives

Okay, so Cornerstone is back, kind of. The name is, anyway, and just a little bit of the content. If you saw the old game, you might recognize a few ideas that sneaked in. :) This is the game that I gave a rough presentation of in this thread. I'm including the entire game text in this post for comments, because it's really not that big. This game arose as a sort of experimental hack to test out the ideas that we were throwing around in the chatroom the other night.

Here are the specific goals:

1 - Represent characters - and other in game entities, really - in system terms so that Mike and JB will want to play. ;) (This is necessary anyway, in order to regulate character effectiveness.)

2 - Promote a traditional GM uses director stance, players use actor or author stance power split.

3 - Player effectiveness is primarily type A (only impact the imagined reality through the actions of their characters).

4 - Players also have access to type B (direct impacting of the imagined reality), but it must be limited so that it doesn't overshadow the normal (type A) mode.

5 - The type B effectiveness currency must be internally regulated. The frequency / ammount of type B effectiveness that a player has is determined by the choices of the player. It is *NOT* used as a good role-playing cookie by the GM.

Some of the actual mechanics in here are different from what we discussed the other night in the chat, so I want to make a couple of additional notes:

I thought willows' idea about trading karma for facts made so much sense that I just made it the default method. Makes the whole resolution mechanic simpler and more elegant.

Having players name their own attributes is meant to really show that the mechanics are about character effectiveness, *not* about modeling in-game reality. The important game mechanic is that a character has three attributes. It doesn't matter what the attributes called.

So here's the game. I eagerly await comments. :)

=-=-=
BEGIN GAME TEXT
=-=-=

CREDIT

Thanks to Bob McNamee, J. B. Bell, and Shreyas Sampat of the Indie Net-gaming group (indie-netgaming@yahoogroups.com) who hashed out the theory behind this game with me one night on IRC. Special thanks to Ron Edwards and Clinton R. Nixon of The Forge (http://www.indie-rpgs.com). If it weren't for them, Cornerstone likely wouldn't exist.


INTRODUCTION

Cornerstone is a setting unspecific game intended to promote character-driven role-playing with a fair degree of player input. It rests on a large body of theory that is hopefully invisible during actual play. Cornerstone offers a quick-playing resolution mechanic, geared for transparency and low handling time. They system used to represent characters can, with little difficulty, be used to represent anything else in the game world that might take part in a conflict. If necessary, animals, items, vehicles, even places and ideas can be represented in exactly the same way as characters and interact using the same mechanics.


GAMEPLAY

A session of Cornerstone progresses in a manner typical of most role-playing games. Each player is responsible for announcing the actions of his character, describing that character's thoughts and feelings, acting out dialogue, and so on. The game master is responsible for describing the game environment and situations surrounding the characters, as well as regulating the game system and narrating the results of conflicts. The rules text assumes that the reader is familiar with the standard conventions of such games.


CREATING AND MAINTAINING CHARACTERS

Cornerstone characters are represented by attributes and traits. Attributes are broad headings that serve to categorize the specific traits that make up the details of the character. Traits are descriptors that define specific elements of a character. A trait might be the character's job, a particular skill, some important item that the character owns, a special relationship, and so on. Anything that helps make the character unique can be a trait.

Every Cornerstone character has three attributes, which each player may name whatever he likes. The important thing to remember is that attributes need to be broad categories, applicable in many different situations. Each attribute has a numerical rating that is always equal to the number of traits the attribute contains. Every character must begin with at least one, and as many as eight different traits in each of his attributes. New characters may have up to ten traits distributed among the three attributes. This means that the total sum of a new character's attribute values will never be more than ten. Some of the traits may be left undefined if the player wishes, to be defined during future play. This gives players the ability to dynamically develop their characters. During a game session, if a player "discovers" some new aspect of his character it may be immediately inserted into one of the character's attributes as a new trait.

The character creation procedure begins with writing a short background story for the character. (A few paragraphs will do; more definition will be given to the character as the game progresses.) Go through the background and underline the ideas that seem to be the most important to the concept of the character. Use these as the character's traits, arranging them into three broad categories that serve as attributes.

In addition to attributes and traits, each character begins the game with a fund of five karma points. Karma points are used during conflicts to activate traits (see the next section on resolving conflicts) and to add new traits to the character in between game sessions.

At the end of every session, each player has the opportunity to further develop his character by adding new traits. In order to add a new trait, the player must add a few lines to his character's background story describing how and why the new trait came about. This explanation does not have to be a retelling of the events that took place during the game; however it must be consistent with the character's previously established story. New traits also cost karma points. Adding a trait to an attribute costs a number of karma points equal to the attribute's current rating. A player may also add new undefined traits to his character. Undefined traits cost seven karma points.


RESOLVING CONFLICTS

Dice rolls in Cornerstone are made to resolve conflicts - situations in which a player has stated a goal that his character might reasonably fail to achieve. All conflicts have some sort of opposition that might prevent the character from succeeding. Opposition may be active (another character) or passive (part of the environment). During play the game master should help the players formulate specific goals for their characters by asking questions. The dice should not be rolled until everyone has a clear picture of what they represent.

Conflicts are resolved on the player's part by rolling 1d6 minus 1d6 and adding the result to one of his character's attributes. This attribute should be the one most relevant to the conflict - the attribute containing the greatest number of traits that the character might find useful in resolving the conflict. The game master makes the choice if there is a question. Players may activate traits from the other two attributes by spending karma. It costs one karma point to activate a trait; doing so increases the result of the player's conflict roll by one. The player must convince the game master that the trait would actually be useful to his character before activating it.


>SIDEBAR - INSPECTION BASED DICE ROLLING<
There is a dice-rolling shortcut for those who don't use electronic dice-rollers. Roll a red d6 and a white d6, take the die showing the lowest face and discard the other. The red die generates negative numbers, the white die positive. Substitute other colors of dice as required by your collection.
>/SIDEBAR<


The game master must also roll 1d6 minus 1d6, representing the opposition. In the case of an active opposition, the roll is added to one of the opposing character's attributes in exactly the same way that the player does for his character. In the case of a passive opposition, the game master selects an opposition level to add his roll to. The opposition level is typically between three and five (four makes a good default), but the game master may make it larger or smaller in particular situations if it seems appropriate.

If the player's roll is greater than the game master's roll, the outcome of the conflict favors the player's character. The player receives a number of karma points equal to the difference between the two rolls. If the player wishes, he may define a number of facts about the outcome of the conflict. These facts may be anything that the player likes, as long as they fit into the context of the conflict. Each fact defined reduces the number of karma points that the player receives by one.

If the player's roll is less than the game master's roll, the outcome of the conflict favors the opposition. The player loses a number of karma points equal to the difference between the two rolls. If the player wishes, he may reduce the number of karma points lost by creating concessions for his character. Concessions are similar to facts in that they can be anything the player likes, with the restriction that they must be undesirable from the perspective of the player's character. If the player does not have enough karma points to cover a loss required by a conflict roll, he must make up the difference by defining concessions.

Once the player has received or paid is karma and finished defining any facts or concessions the game master narrates the result of the conflict. The narration must be consistent with the outcome indicated by the dice, and with any facts or concessions defined by the player.


>SIDEBAR - INTERPLAYER CONFLICTS<
If a conflict arises between two player controlled characters, resolve it exactly as described in the main text. The winning player first takes his karma (and defines any facts), then the losing player pays his karma (and defines any concessions). Only then does the game master narrate the result.
>/SIDEBAR<

=-=-=
END GAME TEXT
=-=-=

This seems cool.  Has it been playtested?  The Karma Point (KP, heh heh) mechanic works on paper, but I'd be interested in learning how it plays out in practice.

As written, it seems to address all of your stated goals.  <applause>

Quote>SIDEBAR - INSPECTION BASED DICE ROLLING<
There is a dice-rolling shortcut for those who don't use electronic dice-rollers. Roll a red d6 and a white d6, take the die showing the lowest face and discard the other. The red die generates negative numbers, the white die positive. Substitute other colors of dice as required by your collection.
>/SIDEBAR<

This doesn't work exactly right.  With d6-d6, there's a 1-in-6 chance of rolling doubles, which is zero.  But with the alternate system above, there's no chance for zero.  The obvious solution is to include the provision that if you roll doubles, it's zero.  Or maybe that's implied.  :)  

As an alternative, you might consider using 2d6-7, which is statistically the same thing.

Quote from: silkwormThis seems cool.  Has it been playtested?  The Karma Point (KP, heh heh) mechanic works on paper, but I'd be interested in learning how it plays out in practice.

Not yet, but I intend to playtest it with the Indie Net-gaming group if they're willing. :)

Quote
As written, it seems to address all of your stated goals.  <applause>

Thank ye!

Quote
This doesn't work exactly right.  With d6-d6, there's a 1-in-6 chance of rolling doubles, which is zero.  But with the alternate system above, there's no chance for zero.  The obvious solution is to include the provision that if you roll doubles, it's zero.  Or maybe that's implied.  :)

It's not implied, but that's how it's supposed to work. I just forgot to write it in. Thanks for catching the slip. :)

Looks cool Nathan!
I'd be up for trying it after our Torchbearer test...

Hi Nathan,

Wow, a new member of the game-family that includes Donjon, Trollbabe, Violence Future, Otherkind, Universalis to some extent, Violence Future, octaNe ... the spawn of InSpectres, Elfs, and The Pool. I love this family. I hope it's not the only thing that comes out of the Forge, but it sure is fine.

Here are some comments and ideas on what you've presented so far.

1) I recommend that the character creation paragraph be kept brief, perhaps with similar, not necessarily identical, guidelines as Hero Wars and The Pool.

2) I imagine that relationships can be traits ...? Things owned? Memories? Or do they have to be more concrete usual RPG-trait type things?

3) I suggest getting rid of any reference at all to "opposed vs. passive" rolls. If you consider anything whatsoever that is "in the player-character's way" to be a "character," and if you treat its numbers exactly the same, then you're all set. A fencepost, a mortal enemy, weather to be endured, a ditch to jump, whatever. All it's got is a number, and that number is enlisted in the opposed roll. Doesn't matter what it is.

4) I have kind of a personal beef with systems that use 2d6 with some sort of mathematical manipulation and pretend to be "new (Babylon Project, Feng Shui, Zero) - but, since in Cornerstone, taking the difference sets the Karma gain or loss, then all my ammunition for my usual argument is irrelevant. I'm impressed!

Don't Karma points go up fast during play? I'm interested in whether this is a ping-pong kind of game (like Animus seems to be in Paladin) or a slow-drive kind of game (like The Questing Beast). Playtesting will be crucial for this point.

5) Here's my real question about the system. Don't consider it a criticism or even a suggestion. The question is, Why have Karma go up with a successful roll and down with an unsuccessful one? Conceivably, it could be reversed, or it could even be based on some other aspect of the roll (number of 6's or whatever) that has nothing to do with success/failure. I think that considering all the possiblities is pretty important, because the answer will define "what play is about" at the metagame level.

6) Concessions are a neat twist on Monologues of Defeat from The Pool and most player-narration in Trollbabe. In practice, I've found that players actually like to hose their characters at appropriate moments - counter to the widely-held assumption that players will always decide in favor of the character's advantages, life, etc.

7) Finally, I don't think Cornerstone is as generic as it looks - I think it makes the most sense when the Fate of the Character is at stake, as opposed to the Fate of Nations or the Fate of Metaphysical Issues.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Ron Edwards
1) I recommend that the character creation paragraph be kept brief, perhaps with similar, not necessarily identical, guidelines as Hero Wars and The Pool.

Do you recomend specific guidelines for number of words, and so on? IME, some players don't like the limitation. (Mike, for example, can't stand it. :) I thought a safe middle ground might just to be "keep it short, a paragraph or two is fine," etc.

Quote
2) I imagine that relationships can be traits ...? Things owned? Memories? Or do they have to be more concrete usual RPG-trait type things?

Certainly. I specificaly mentioned owned things and relationships. I'll add memories to the list. :)

Quote
3) I suggest getting rid of any reference at all to "opposed vs. passive" rolls. If you consider anything whatsoever that is "in the player-character's way" to be a "character," and if you treat its numbers exactly the same, then you're all set. A fencepost, a mortal enemy, weather to be endured, a ditch to jump, whatever. All it's got is a number, and that number is enlisted in the opposed roll. Doesn't matter what it is.

Good idea. I think I need to flesh out the "use the system to represent anything" idea a bit more. The reason I had the difference in the first place was that - since attributes are determined by the number of traits they contain - I thought it would be a bit hard on the GM to have to come up with 3 or 4 traits for a fencepost to make it a worthy opposition. :)

Quote
4) I have kind of a personal beef with systems that use 2d6 with some sort of mathematical manipulation and pretend to be "new (Babylon Project, Feng Shui, Zero) - but, since in Cornerstone, taking the difference sets the Karma gain or loss, then all my ammunition for my usual argument is irrelevant. I'm impressed!

Hehe. But, hmm. I hope Cornerstone doesn't pretend to be "new" in the "Hah hah, look at me, I'm INNOVATIVE!" sense. The d6 - d6 mechanic has been around for ages. Since before FUDGE (which was originaly d6 - d6), even.

Quote
Don't Karma points go up fast during play? I'm interested in whether this is a ping-pong kind of game (like Animus seems to be in Paladin) or a slow-drive kind of game (like The Questing Beast). Playtesting will be crucial for this point.

Yup, I'm interested to see what kind of dynamic it turns out. The volume of Karma points that gets moved around via the results of rolls is much higher than the volume of Karma points that gets moved around via activating traits, or adding new traits. This is one reason I went to the d6 - d6 mechanic. Originaly I had attributes being targets for d10 rolls, which had a lot of karma flying around. This had a couple of wierd features. (The main thing was that it was really nasty to try and turn it into an opposed roll mechanic. At one point I actually had each side making separate rolls and comparing the margin of their margins. NO! :) With that mechanic, the higher your attribute the more karma you were likely to lose if you failed, but the less you were likely to get if you won, which seemed backwards to me. With the d6 - d6 mechanic, your odds of gaining / losing karma depend on the power of your opponent. If you're more powerful than he is, you're most likely to gain karma equal to your difference in power. If you're less powerful, you're most likely to lose the same amount. (E.g., if my attribute is 6 and his attribute is 4, I'm likely to gain 2 Karma.)

Quote
5) Here's my real question about the system. Don't consider it a criticism or even a suggestion. The question is, Why have Karma go up with a successful roll and down with an unsuccessful one? Conceivably, it could be reversed, or it could even be based on some other aspect of the roll (number of 6's or whatever) that has nothing to do with success/failure. I think that considering all the possiblities is pretty important, because the answer will define "what play is about" at the metagame level.

There are a couple of reasons. Some of them are relatively minor, like wanting to support the idea that high rolls are good, low rolls are bad. The main one has to do with the trade-off between Karma and Facts. I wanted to absolutely enforce a one to one relationship between Karma and Facts.

Facts are what ties Karma to the roll mechanics. If you win a roll, the situation favors your character, so it naturally makes sense to let the players define cool facts on successful rolls. The inverse is true for unsuccessful rolls - the situation is disfavorable, so it makes sense to require the player to define concessions.

Remember that an overiding goal was to have the currency flow of type B effectiveness vs. type A effectiveness be regulated by player choice. If the player makes a successful roll, he has to make a choice between Story Now (i.e., type B, defining facts) or something to do with character effectiveness (type A, karma flow). Given the desired one on one mapping between karma and facts, there was pretty much only one way to do it. I couldn't give them a positive type A vs. a negative type B choice. (That is, I couldn't say, "lose karma or define cool facts on a success roll" and "gain karma or hose your character on a failed roll.") If I did that it wouldn't be a choice at all.

So, basically, any time a player has the chance to define facts, he has to have some equally desireable (or equally undesireable), but different, alternative. It should never be a given which one the player takes. If the player has a chance to define cool facts, then he must also have the option of improving his character's effectiveness. If the player has the chance of defining evil concessions, then he must also have the chance of losing character effectiveness.

It was pretty intuitive, really, once I'd broken it down to that level.

Quote
7) Finally, I don't think Cornerstone is as generic as it looks - I think it makes the most sense when the Fate of the Character is at stake, as opposed to the Fate of Nations or the Fate of Metaphysical Issues.

I definitely designed it with character exploration in mind. That seemd like a natural fit for the character effectiveness elements.