In the Egri & the "Lumpley Principle" -thread it was argued that guessing games are karma and not fortune because the values are fixed. I understand this so that the involvement of luck is not relevant ot DFK.
Then I started wodering. We use the old game of rock, paper and scissors to solve conflicts in many LARPs. Intuitively I would say it is a fortune mechanic and acts as a randomizer. But when you dig into it begins to look more like a karma mechanic.
Rock-paper-scissors (RPS) is a comparison of fixed values. The values of R, P and S can be defined like this:
R>S, R<P, R=R
S>P, S<R, S=S
P>R, P<S, P=P
This is different from normal numbers because they are not linear but cyclical. None of the R, P and S is absolutely "biggest". They are just "bigger" or "smaller" in relation to the other. According to my understanding this leads to the high influence of luck in the mechanic but it should not make it fortune.
I don't know if I am doing violence on the spirit of Ron's essay - at least my conclusion is counter-intuitive. What do you think?
It's Fortune because it's random and external.
Hi there,
Yeah, I'm with Jared, insofar as one's "throwing dice" through one's uncertainty about the hidden values. But there's another point, too: I also think that rock-paper-scissors values are not fixed values at all; they're not established until the moment of resolution.
I agree that there are some interesting DFK overlaps, though. The one that's engaging my thoughts at the moment is the effect of multiple Drama statements in a game which has turns for speaking (Soap, Universalis, Pantheon) - effectively, one is uncertainty about the narration's twists and turns prior to one's turn. I think it's still Drama, but as I say, there's a bit of a Fortune-like effect.
Best,
Ron
It would be fortune. But re-tests exist in most LARPs, and people pull in predictable patterns. You can effectively work out somebody's pattern, and then beat them on most occasions (if you have a retest).
For example, in a re-test many people pull the thing that would beat what you previously pulled, instinctively and without thinking.
-Matt
Quote from: Matt
For example, in a re-test many people pull the thing that would beat what you previously pulled, instinctively and without thinking.
Still Fortune. Can you say with absolute certainty before the test what the opponent will throw? I can tell you what the expected value of a series of dice throws are. That does not make them any less random (random is a boolean; True or False). More predictable in some cases, yes. But Karma is when you know for certain based on mechanics. Not just when somehting is likely.
System A: Characters can lift ten times their STR in KG. So a STR 10 lifts 100 KG max. Karma.
System B: to lift something roll 10d10, and add the result to STRx10. If the result is greater than the weight then the character lifts it. So a STR 9 has a 99.99999999% chance of lifting 101 KG. Fortune. Very predictable curve (moreso, I'd guess, than predicting Rock-Paper-Scisors results). But still fortune.
Now, here's an interesting question. If my STR 9 character lifts 100KG with system B (instead of 101), that gives him a 100% chance of success. Do fortune systems become Karma systems when the attempted feat falls outside of the range of possibility that is greater than zero and less than 1 (the fortune range)?
Mike
Quote from: Mike HolmesNow, here's an interesting question. If my STR 9 character lifts 100KG with system B (instead of 101), that gives him a 100% chance of success. Do fortune systems become Karma systems when the attempted feat falls outside of the range of possibility that is greater than zero and less than 1 (the fortune range)?
Interesting question, but I think that for the sake of keeping the terms straight it is better to continue to call it Fortune but in discussing the individual game, one may say "it is effectively Karma" or perhaps "it is a poorly designed fortune system" if the zero barrier is in an illogical play, and likely to be used in play often.
Hi there,
It's always interesting to read game texts grappling with the issue of "outreaching" the system. It often includes built-in potential for automatic failure (96-00, 99-00, 00 being common) and text about how opposing modifiers obviate the "problem" (e.g. the fellow with Stealth 120% is up against a -40% mod).
The key point is that an automatic success just grates certain design specs the wrongest way (RuneQuest, Rolemaster), whereas other design principles (Fvlminata, Theatrix, Amber) take it as the default and add uncertainty only for local applications.
Another point, which is part of a big essay I'm preparing right now, is that character-improvement systems are often a serious problem for some approaches to play, in that they upset the system if they "go on" long enough.
Best,
Ron
Quote from: Jack Spencer Jrone may say "it is effectively Karma" or perhaps "it is a poorly designed fortune system" if the zero barrier is in an illogical play, and likely to be used in play often.
I think that the first is more accurate. The second is a value judgement. That is, assuming that the designer sees limited ranges as a feature, it's up to the participants to decide if they agree. Frex, in GURPS, there is a statement that I'll paraphrase as "All tasks have a god-given chance to fail, but some tasks are just impossible. There is no god-given chance to succeed." Refers to the fact that any roll fails on an 18 on 3d6, no matter how high the skill level and modifiers. But if skill and modifiers bring the chance below 3, then you just fail. IOW, they see this as a design feature (they could just as easily say that a 3 always succeeds). As such, they see a 0% chance of success as a reasonable outcome of the resolution system. Which I agree could at least be said to be "effecively karma". Further, however, Ron points out that few systems are all-or-nothing. As such, perhaps it's always better to look more deeply and be specific.
That said, I have no problem calling GURPS a Fortune system and qualifying it only when neccessary.
Mike
QuoteI also think that rock-paper-scissors values are not fixed values at all; they're not established until the moment of resolution.
(italics mine)
I see this point and agree that this makes it fortune BUT how then is this different then from a situation where the participants of a conflict assign in secret some amount of resource to the conflict and the bigger spender wins? Isn't the
relative value established at the moment of resolution also in this case. I say relative because the absolute value is not important to the resolution of the conflict.
The operative phrase there is some amount of resource. That turns it into a different kind of mechanic; it's more like Nobilis's Karma at that level. RPS doesn't have a resource element. There is nothing certain that affects your decision to use any particular value.
That's how I see it, anyway.
Quote from: Mike Holmes
Still Fortune. Can you say with absolute certainty before the test what the opponent will throw?
With some people, yes. Depends on the person. Some people are very good at pulling random, some are just plain duff at it. I've won any number of challenges on the trot with some people in live vampire games, just by working out their instinctive system. With certain people it ceases to have a random element.
It's becuase people have some control of what they pull, whereas dice would be independent of their thought process. It becomes an exercise in psychology, not a randomizer.
-Matt
Quote from: Mike HolmesDo fortune systems become Karma systems when the attempted feat falls outside of the range of possibility that is greater than zero and less than 1 (the fortune range)?
We had this discussion not so long ago in one of the D20 design threads. I maintained that indeed certain systems become karma outside a defined range, in that there are impossible tasks and automatic tasks, and gave several examples. I'd say that Multiverser's skill system has that feature, although it's a bit disguised--it might even be considered a drama feature at times, that is, those times when the referee decides the task is an automatic success not requiring a roll. I think a good example of this is here: Multiverser regards walking a skill, but only requires checks when there are conditions (moving surface, altered gravity, slippery, impaired ability) which make it difficult. Thus in most cases when the player says his character walks, he just does so, because the referee has by default determined that this use of the skill is automatic. Now, whether that's drama because the referee decides it's automatic or karma because the referee perceives that the bonuses to the skill in this situation would make any roll success could be debated; but at that moment the skill use is not fortune-based.
But if you find that thread, there's plenty on the subject there.
Regarding the primary question, whether RSP is really fortune, I think there's a misunderstanding of the concept of
randomizer based on our notion of random. We use
random when we really mean
unpredictable or
unknown. Some examples may help.
- Anyone who has done enough computer programming knows that you can't really get random numbers from a computer. What you usually get is unpredictable strings of fixed numbers. In the most basic programs, if you seed the randomizer with the same number, you get the same returns every time. Even if you find a way to tie the randomizer to the clock, you're not getting random numbers--you're getting numbers that could be predicted and calculated, if you knew enough about the variables, but which serve as random sequences because you can't work out the outcome.
- This calls to mind the stopwatch method of randomizers. I'm fond of this, and actually use it in my forum games so I don't have to have dice on my desk while I type. I don't remember the name of the game (designed to play while hiking) that originated it; I'll claim independent creation because I'd never heard of anyone else doing it when I put it in Multiverser's dice appendix. Yet this isn't really random; it only seems random because no one is paying attention to how many hundreds of a second have passed on the clock when the button is pushed giving a new return. If I were watching the clock, I could probably stop it to within a few hundreds of a target number (I can start and stop an electronic stopwatch at exactly 1.00 seconds if I get my rhythm attuned to 120 beats per second before I do it), but because we aren't looking at the watch when we stop it we get an unpredictable--not really random--number.
- The top card in a deck is not really random; it's fixed. It got there by a process that isn't really random, but unpredictable. With sufficient information on the shuffling, we could determine the top card mathematically--but we can't have that kind of information.
- Dice, the epitomy of randomizers, don't really fall at random. They tumble following very specific physical laws, and if we actually knew the position, force, and angle, the exact nature of the surface, and a few other variables, we could predict how they would land. Even here, they are not random, in the quantum physics sense of that word, but unpredictable[/list:u]
My impression is that in most cases, RSP is as unpredictable as any other method, giving a 50% chance of success to each participant. However,
Quote from: when Matt wroteI've won any number of challenges on the trot with some people in live vampire games, just by working out their instinctive system. With certain people it ceases to have a random element.
...that strongly suggested to me that this may be karma at the metagame level; that is, like counting cards at the Casino, or stacking the deck, or using a known seed number, or watching the stopwatch, Matt has found a way to beat the system. It's probably a violation of the social contract at some level, but since most players have not considered that you could beat the system that way, no one objects.
I believe it was Freeman Dyson who, at Los Alamos, use to open all the safes that contained the secret papers. For half of them he felt the tumblers; for the other half, he guessed which natural constant would have been used by the particular physicist whose safe it was. I suspect you can figure out what someone is going to throw in an RSP contest, but that's not how it's supposed to work.
--M. J. Young
I think cases like this require a rare fourth resolution category: Skill. Skill resolution determines the outcome based on the player's performance in a real world skill-based task which may or may not have any similarity to the player-character's in-game-world actions.
In tabletop play this generally happens by accident, not intended by the designer, when a mechanism intended to be Fortune proves manipulable by skillful means, such as counting cards. I've also seen occasional improvised skill resolution events at the table, things like "Okay, I'll give your character another chance to pick the lock if you can pick up this ice cube with these chopsticks and put it in this glass without dropping it." (Not a good thing, of course. A sign of marginally functional play at best.)
However, skill resolution is is actually quite common in some LARP styles. IFGS, for one, used little electronic wire-loop dexterity tests for picking locks. And pretty much all boffer-sword combat is a form of skill-based resolution. A more skillful player has a real advantage not accounted for by any random result nor by drama nor by game stats.
Even though individual contests can still have a great deal of unpredictability in their outcome (unless opponents are mismatched or the required success conditions are set very easy or very difficult to achieve relative to the player's skill), I see distinct differences between skill tests and conventional Fortune mechanisms. For example, how hard a player tries should have no effect on a die roll or card draw, but can have a noticeable effect on a boffer fight or a lockpicking simulation.
I wouldn't be so certain that the skill effect in rock-paper-scissors that Matt and Johannes report was not anticipated or intended by the designers.
- Walt
Hmm. Random, random, random. Some would say that the universe is completely deterministic. Heisenberg aside, it just might be so. But that's completely irrelevant. For our purpose, the question is, does the person know what the result of the attempt will be? If he does not know the result, then it's effectively random, for our purposes.
Skill always is important. That is, in many of these systems a bit of skill can go a long way to reducing unpredictabilty. But, rarely does it eliminate it completely. Matt, what you're saying is that for a person that's skilled playing against a person that's unskilled, the odds are that you will win. But I'm willing to postulate that even in the case of the most skilled RSP player vs. the least skilled RSP player in the world, that there is still an infintesimal chance of the skilled player losing.
Now, that level may get to the point where the skilled player can behave as though it were deterministic. But I'd postulate that this happens at about 90% certaintly of a result anyhow. That is, in a dice system, if a player has a 90% chance of succeeding, he may do something like risk his character's life. Which I assume you would do, too, Matt, if you were playing against the unskilled player.
So, the question becomes a sticky one. I understand Matt's point. That is, what's the importance of pointing out the DFK methodology if not to point out how players will behave. It becomes purely a matter of categorization, which is only so useful. But to speak of it in terms of behavior is problematic. Because that means that, at some level of probability all of what we call "Fortune" systems, they too become Karma, effectively.
What we can do is resign ourselves to sticking to using DFK for categorization, but use an addtional set of terms to speak to relative behaviors. So, any system that provides for even a slight amount of unpredictability would technically be Fortune. But we could say that players responded to a particular resolution mechanic at some part of it's range as though it were Karma. Karma behavior tendency?
That's a mouthful, but to call any system where a player behaves as though it were predictable Karma would really be problematic. For example, conservative players would have a different tolerance than wild players for what point they started to to act "Karma-ish". As such, we can't just choose some actual chance to call the border.
Does that make sense?
Mike
Quote from: Walt FreitagI think cases like this require a rare fourth resolution category: Skill. Skill resolution determines the outcome based on the player's performance in a real world skill-based task which may or may not have any similarity to the player-character's in-game-world actions.
I am tempted to take this to a new thread; I've gone so far as to slap a title on it, so that if it becomes the beginning of a substantially new discussion someone can split it. I would not think that what I'm about to say is at all controversial; but the fact that Walt has said what he did above makes me wonder whether my thinking on this is skewed from the current orthodoxy on the matter.
Skill-based resolution is merely karma on the metagame level. That is, in game karma is a matter of which character is more skilled or more able, and metagame karma is a matter of which player is more skilled or more able.
Thus skill-based resolution is not a separate category but a specific application of one of the three existing categories.
--M. J. Young
Kharma or Fortune, depending on how you look at it. The chopsticks and ice cube bit sounds like that even if you are skilled with chopsticks, it still *might* slip and fall. Therefore the outcome is uncertain. Hence: fortune.
Skill-based resolution is fortune because the outcome is uncertain? In what way is an outcome certain when Drama resolution is used? Skill-based resolution is karma on the metagame level? In what way is comparing how many tokens two players bid for success not metagame? [Player] skill is always important? If my skill at rolling high numbers on a d20 is important, then I'm cheating. (The issue is resolution mechanisms, not the strategic choices involved in setting up the situation being resolved.)
You could look at this however you want. It depends on what your reason is for having categories in the first place. I say, it doesn't help to understand the important similarities between, say, arm wrestling and a juried poetry contest used to resolve conflicting goals if both are lumped together with comparing character stats and comparing bids or with rolling dice and drawing cards.
Skill resolution is rarely applicable or functional in tabletop RPGs, so this is a rather abstruse point in that arena. But LARP designers need to understand the distinct characteristics of skill resolution, because as a practical matter is has utterly different implications for player behavior than karma, fortune, or drama mechanisms. A categorization that puts boffer weapon dueling into the same category as the D20 combat system, or the Rekon-1 combat system (every character has a single stat for fighting ability, highest number wins the fight), would be at best inadequate, at worst counterproductive, if the discussion includes comparing, designing, playing, or criticizing LARPs.
- Walt
I think you guys are making it too hard.
Drama = resolution based on in-game dramatic needs or desires
Karma = resolution based on comparisons of in-game fixed values
Fortune = resolution based on outside-game objective variables
Fortune is called Fortune because (a) Ron adapted the terminology from Jonathan Tweet; and, (b) most methods for interjecting objective variables into a game are based on randomizers of some kind. Skill-based resolution is Fortune because it introduces an objective variable.
it has nothing to do with certainty. you could raise an issue of certainty for any of the mechanics. Karma is uncertain if you don't know what all the fixed values are (player tactics of hidden knowledge.) Drama mechanics are uncertain until used -- you only know what has gone before.
the point is really that a Drama mechanic is not Fortune because any variables introduced are subjective rather than objective: what sounds aesthetically pleasing instead of what the dice say. likewise, roshambo is a Fortune mechanic, because in-game aesthetics or in-game fixed values are irrelevant to which hand you throw (unless you are playing the robot-constitution-republican variant popular with kibologists; they seem to like to throw robot no matter what...)
FWIW I think you're spot on John
I guess the point is that this is the current definition, but that it's not particularly useful other than communicating a designation shorthand. It doesn't imply a player response.
Again, that said, I think that we could start a whole new set of terms based on Certainty/Uncertainty, and how this affects decision making. Perhaps another day.
Mike
Talysman, that's a very concise and self-consistent assessment.
Under those definitions, skill-based resolution mechanisms would indeed be Fortune.
As would a system in which players resolve between different possible outcomes by openly and competitively bidding resource tokens. Such as in, say, Universalis.
The practical reality is that the actual used-in-the-real-world skill-based mechanisms common in LARPs using things like electronic dexterity gizmos and boffer weapons (and very occasionally in tabletop RPG play using trivia questions or whatever toys come to hand) have no meaningful similarity whatsoever to the actual used-in-the-real-world Fortune mechanisms common in tabletop role playing games using things such as dice and cards. Effectiveness and advancement are different, the relationships with stance and IIEE are different (just try to come up with a reasonable "Fortune in the Middle" approach for boffer combat resolution), and the design issues are all but non-overlapping (which makes them far more different than between Fortune and Karma). Categorizing skill-based mechanisms as Fortune based on abstruse definitions without addressing this reality is absurd.
- Walt
Quote from: John 'talysman' LavioletteDrama = resolution based on in-game dramatic needs or desires
Karma = resolution based on comparisons of in-game fixed values
Fortune = resolution based on outside-game objective variables
I'm not happy with these statements of the definition; but this may because I see these three concepts of resolution as applying more broadly than merely role playing games, to games of all kinds.
Particularly with Karma, I'd have said that karma resolution was about direct comparison of game-relevant strengths or values. Thus resolution in Amber is karma because the players pit scores against each other directly; but I would say that game resolution in Football is also karma, because it is expected that the better team will win. Granted in that situation the "game relevant strengths or values" are difficult to define, but they clearly include strategy, teamwork, and individual player abilities such as strength, agility, and reaction. I don't get to that by a leap. I recognize something of a continuum of examples. War games in which there are no fortune variables generally use karma--the stronger army defeats the weaker army, taking certain losses in the process. Strategy board games with no fortune in them, such as Chess and Stratego, are simliarly karma in resolution, but it is here that the shift from comparison of numbers on paper to comparison of player abilities is most apparent (and this illumines the fact that such player abilities are relevant in the war games and in Amber as well). Karma means that the side that can put the game where its advantages lie will win, with minimal chance of failure due to other factors.
Even if my assessment is arguable, I think that the notion of "game relevant values" itself includes puzzle-solving abilities and such. That is, if I hand a player a wire puzzle and instruct that he is to undo it to open the lock, I have made his personal ability to solve that puzzle a game-relevant value. Similarly, in a tabletop game, if there is a riddle that must be solved to access a particular area, the solving of the riddle is a resolution mechanic in the game. Either it is karma, based on the players' ability to solve such riddles, or all this time we've been working with a three-fold model of resolution mechanics with a glaring hole in it that none of us have seen.
I say that it hasn't come up before because that is karma. I put it on a metagame level, because it involves player, not character, abilities, but that aspect of it might be my misunderstanding of what constitutes metagame.
I agree that not knowing the opposing fixed value does not change karma to fortune; my point on unpredictability was only that Rochambo was not less "random" than other "randomizers".
--M. J. Young