Blended Mechanics?

[bluegargantua]

Now, let us suppose we have a task of difficult 15--we'll say it's opening a specific lock. The mechanic tells us that we roll D20 and add bonuses, and must meet or beat the target number.

For the character with no skill, no bonuses at all, this is clearly a fortune system. He's got to roll fifteen or better--6 chances in 20, a 30% chance of success. Those odds are against him, although not phenomenally so.

But my character is wearing these guantlets of dexterity for +3, with an Ioun stone that give me another +1, and my high dexterity gives me +4, along with my gnomish locks bonus for +2, and my skill in locks for another +4--I've got +14 altogether. For me, this is no longer a fortune system; it is a karma system. I don't have to roll the dice, because (eliminating the automatic failure rule) I cannot fail to open this lock. I am, karmically speaking, better than the lock, and it will always open for me.

Kind of a side point here --  if I've got all these bonuses and modifiers and whatnot, then yeah, opening a Diff. 15 Lock will be no problem.  However, a game in which all opponents/obstacles can be so handily beaten by the player, is a game which needs a better GM.

In a game like D&D as the charcter's level improves (and consequently, his skills and abilities improve), the level of challenge should rise by a corresponding amount.  This is reflected in the game's Challenge Ratings and Encounter Level ideas.  The Epic Level handbook will allow for ultra-high level characters to do flat-out impossible things (swim up a waterfall?  No problem.).  One of the side-effects of this is that things which were once impossible for you, now become almost routine.

A similiar example would be a 1st level Fighter taking on an Orc.  Now, at 1st Level, this is going to be a real opponent for the Fighter.  He's going to have to roll well in order to beat his opponent (he's very dependant on Fortune).  By the time 4th Level rolls around, our Fighter will handily be able to dispatch an Orc in one round.  In fact, he may be able to take on several Orcs at once (something he couldn't do earlier).  However, unless there's a huge number of orcs attacking him, plain vanilla orcs are no longer a real threat or challenge.  The game reflects this by making them worth less XP (until they become practically nil).  So the GM will have to up the challenge, either by providing a tougher monster, adding class levels to an orc, or giving the orcs some sort of superior position or possession (ambush with a magic crossbow).  Once that happens, the importance of Fortune comes back into the fore.

Basically, as long as there is a chance to succeed or fail, and that chance is based on a randomly generated result, then it's a Fortune system.  The other stuff may result in certain actions become more certain (or even rendering certain actions automatic), but as long as there's a doubt that must be resolved by a die roll, then it's Fortune.  

I can see how it's easy to slide into saying "It's a Fortune-based game with some Karma mixed in", but I don't think it reflects the reality of what actually happens over the long haul in these games.

later
Tom

[Valamir]

That point is profound in its simplicity Tom.  Well said.

A 10th level Fighter against a 1st level enemy might as well use a karmic system to adjucate the results for all the difference fortune will make.  But what 10th level fighters ever get to face a 1st level enemy.

[Le Joueur]

I can see how it's easy to slide into saying "It's a Fortune-based game with some Karma mixed in", but I don't think it reflects the reality of what actually happens over the long haul in these games.

That point is profound in its simplicity Tom.  Well said.

A 10th level Fighter against a 1st level enemy might as well use a karmic system to adjucate the results for all the difference fortune will make.  But what 10th level fighters ever get to face a 1st level enemy.

Exactly!  Here we have an example of a game with a Fortune-based combat action resolution system and a Karma-based level system.  The whole game is a collection of Drama, Fortune, and Karma mechanics blended together.

Here's how I see it: each combat action is largely decided by a Fortune mechanic.  The Karma-based level mechanics can coopt this decision when elements of disparate levels are introduced (via a Drama mechanism, "So the GM will have to up the challenge").

Why does the whole system have to characterized by only one label?  I stick to what Ron said about labelling single mechanics.

Fang Langford

[bluegargantua]

Why does the whole system have to characterized by only one label?  I stick to what Ron said about labelling single mechanics.

Hmmm...by this reasoning, every game works via mechanic combinations of F/K/D with only a very few exceptions.  I don't think that helps clarify matters any.  

I think that a system will have a general or overarching category based on how crucial game decisions get made.  In D&D, the Gamist reward system means that actions which were previously very important to the player will eventually become almost automatic.  However, that very same Gamist approach means that those automatic actions are no longer important to the players -- they've got bigger fish to fry.  And those fish, those actions, will have a chance to succeed or fail based on a random roll, the very heart of Fortune.

That's actually one of the things that I don't like about D&D -- it's very difficult to build a deep story sometimes because unless the opponents are leveling up along with the PCs, they eventually defeat them and move on.  You could have this incredibly rich setting that centers on warring communities of gnomes and kobolds, but the PCs will quickly outstrip both of them in short order.  In most D&D games, this inevitably leads to the discovery that the "bad side" is being bankrolled/supported by a more powerful group of monsters whom the PCs will now have to go fight.  Of course, those monsters are being backed by yet another group and so on and so on and so on (ref. Against the Giants series).

I do think that different system mechanics can use different resolutions systems.  But there's usually a core mechanic which will set the tone for the whole thing.  In this case, the core mechanic is "roll a d20" -- and that sets it (and pretty much the whole game) firmly in Fortune territory.

later
Tom

[Le Joueur]

Why does the whole system have to characterized by only one label?  I stick to what Ron said about labelling single mechanics.

Hmmm...by this reasoning, every game works via mechanic combinations of F/K/D with only a very few exceptions.  I don't think that helps clarify matters any.  

I do.  As a designer, if I'm having problems with a game and someone can say 'take out this Karma mechanic and the rest (mixed with Drama) will take care of it' helps me a lot more than 'it isn't Fortune enough.'

Could it be we are talking about two different uses for the terminology?  I use it for design, 'thinking about adding stuff,' others use it to classify existing systems and don't care to specify the various 'organs' of system (the mechanics).  That might explain why we're having this discussion.

What'll it be Mr. Young?

Fang Langford

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I think people are confounding two things: blended and combined.

The theory as it stands includes the concept of combining Karma, Fortune, and Drama in resolution systems. I give multiple examples in the essay and will do so at request, ad infinitum, for any system that people care to ask about that I'm familiar with. I'd venture to say that "one of the three" -only systems are rare to vanishing.

Therefore any perception that "Ron says a system can only be Karma, Drama, or Fortune" is mistaken. Hell, even the original System Does Matter essay is very clear about that.

However, blending as M.J. is suggesting applies to a single, isolated aspect of a resolution system - e.g. a single die roll and the numbers attending on it. That is something I suggest isn't a valid or useful concept, as long as we are talking about process.

I suggest as well that my breakdown by predictability handles the source of his objection without ambiguity.

TENSION
Now for this issue. Tension, or dramatic content, or enjoyable unpredictability, or whatever you'd like to call it, is essential to role-playing. It is the heart of Situation, one of the five fundamental aspects of the activity.

Dice are one way to generate it - either through Fortune-at-the-End methods as long as they don't stop play, or through Fortune-in-the-Middle methods.

Multiple authorities are another, which is why Universalis and Soap are way more fun with many players, all contributing as (in other games' terms) GMs in a trade-off manner.

Resource limitations are yet another, such as the pools of points used to amplify characters' actions in Nobilis, or "red zone" levels of hit points in D&D, or whatever.

Social interactions can generate the effect as well, as people communicate to one another their expectations or emotional reactions during play.

I think it's probably worth another thread to discuss this in detail, though. It really doesn't have anything to do with Fortune as a special property, or with blending vs. mixing among the DFK categories.

Best,
Ron

[M. J. Young]

At this moment, I'm getting critical database connection failure errors every time I try to post or even open another thread window; so I'm writing offline and hoping the site will reconnect by the time I'm done.

I want to thank Fang for clarifying the problem so astutely; yet I think that this may well be what we're arguing. I'll have to take a step back and recall the thread in which the original disagreement arose. Someone in that thread (which at this instant I can't access, but the link is in my original post) used "The Box" to attempt to illustrate a fortune mechanic. They suggested that the character would roll the dice, add modifiers, and compare it to a chart (if I recall correctly). I said that at the moment they were adding modifiers, they were stepping outside the bounds of a purely fortune mechanic; those modifiers, I maintained, were not fortune, but most likely karma, because they indicated the strengths of the character and so brought them into play. Ron disagreed with that; he maintained that this mechanic, as described, was a fortune mechanic, and that in essence there were no "blended" mechanics--every mechanic was of one distinct type.

Now, what Fang has elucidated is that we may be looking at multiple mechanics; I am not certain whether that is correct. I find the adjustments to be karma, even though the roll is fortune. If what Ron would say is on the order of there is one mechanic that adjusts the other, then we have been talking past each other; but it sounds like Ron is arguing that in sum this is a fortune mechanic, and therefore not at all a karma mechanic. I tend to see this as "the resolution mechanic", singular; but Fang is quite correct that it could be viewed as "the resolution mechanics" plural. Thus in Multiverser, resolution would include several mechanics which determined the numbers to be added and subtracted to reach the target number (most if not all of these karma-derived), and then an additional mechanic which involved rolling the dice to determine success, and one might argue a separate fortune mechanic that used the same roll to determine degree of success (that is, interpret the dice twice, once for hit and again for damage, although it's the same roll).

Fang is the first person to suggest that the karma element is a separate mechanic; and that approach makes sense, even though it's not how I would view it. That is, I see "add up these numbers and roll the dice, determining success and degree from the roll" as one mechanic containing a combination of fortune and karma elements; Fang would say that it divides into the karma mechanic of determining the target number and the separate mechanic of rolling the dice to determine the outcome. But it appears that Ron would say that because you're rolling the dice, it is not at all a karma mechanic but a fortune one.

The d20 arguments based on things I've allegedly overlooked don't really elucidate anything, I'm afraid. I eliminated the "1 Fumbles" rule quite specifically; I neglected the "20 Crit" rule (shame on me--as an old OAD&D hack, it's not part of the game, but I had heard of it, and we did have the "twenty always hits" rule). The point was to show that there could be a mechanic which did not contain those alleged safety valves, which went from being fortune to being karma without changing the nature of the mechanic itself. Talk of the referee not allowing the action of the player doesn't make the meaningless die roll is nonsense--particularly in the context of D20, in which the "take 10" and "take 20" rules already mean you don't have to roll under certain circumstances. If you want to be consistent about it, the "take 10" rule instantly changes this mechanic from fortune to karma, saying that your success or failure can be determined by whether your ability plus ten is sufficient, without the roll of a die. (But I'll concede that this could be considered a separate mechanic.)

It is also meaningless to argue that the DM shouldn't give the same difficulty tasks to characters of increasing difficulty. This only raises a rather foolish question: should the referee increase the difficulty of known tasks as the character advances? Let us suppose that during a tour of the castle, a young thief slips away from the group and stumbles on the treasury. Ah-hah! he thinks, an opportunity to enrich myself. He attempts the difficulty 25 lock, and fails. Three years later he sneaks into that same castle with a raiding party, and finds himself by that same door. Is the lock now difficulty 45? That's silly. It's the same lock. He opens it easily. The system I've outlined converts between fortune and karma as characters improve. In fact, the idea of more difficult tasks also shows this conversion of the same mechanic, since at low levels the character was prevented by karma from being able to do what they now have some chance by fortune to do, and eventually will be able to do automatically, again by karma. But a shifting mechanic and a blended mechanic aren't quite the same thing; I maintain that in every case in which a roll is made in this system, it is partly karma, because it is built on the bonuses the character has that make him as capable as he is.

I don't get your point about Amber.

I believe that my point about Amber (a game I do not know well at all, having only seen it played once while I was running another game) is encapsulated in these words

Amber does permit some tweaking. If role-playing, prior to the conflict, had given Harvey an edge of some kind, then the GM might decree that Harvey can avoid most of the damage involved, or even, perhaps give Oswald an unexpected smack....As written, however, the system component for basic resolution is Karma, and the modifying (not over-riding) system component is Drama.

My point is that Amber has a Karma system with Drama modifiers, and thus a blended mechanic. You appear to be saying that if one player roleplays well, he may by drama (decision of the referee) be given a bonus which will apply to the otherwise karma (comparison of the scores) resolution of the confrontation. You might mean that the two aspects are entirely separate--that karma is unmodified and determines the outcome entirely based on scores, but that drama then gives some sort of comeback to the injured party as a separate mechanic--but when you say "karma modified by drama" it sounds like you mean exactly what I'm saying, that this is a mechanic in which drama is a factor in adjusting the outcome of a primarily karma mechanic. That is exactly the same concept I mean in regard to the original principle, that it represented karma (in the form of stat-based modifiers) being an adjustment on a primarily fortune mechanic.

Fang has elucidated that you could mean that those adjustments are a separate karma (or drama) mechanic not to be confused with the primary fortune (or karma) resolution of the outcome, while I mean that the entire matter has to be seen as one mechanic, in which the lesser aspect is present as a modifier to the greater.

Does this help resolve it?

--M. J. Young

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Actually, taking a atep back, it looks to me like F/D/K has a form of hierarchy or layer to it. That is, all Fortune Mechanics has a form of Karma applied to it. At least in most cases I know of, because all characters have a form of differing scores to reflect the character's effectiveness, in whatever sense it is important to the situation and the game design. Karma is then just Fortune with the random generator stripped out. Does this make sense?

Can a case be made for Drama being Karma with the numerical feature removed?

[Andrew Martin]

The point was to show that there could be a mechanic which did not contain those alleged safety valves, which went from being fortune to being karma without changing the nature of the mechanic itself.

The mechanic is still Fortune because of the roll of the dice. Eliminating the rules patches of criticals and fumbles, then adding massive modifiers that overwhelm the randomness of the D20 doesn't turn the mechanic into a Karma mechanic. It merely points out that the mechanic breaks down when the patch rules of criticals and fumbles are removed and massive modifiers in one direction (+ or -) are allowed.

Talk of the referee not allowing the action of the player doesn't make the meaningless die roll is nonsense--particularly in the context of D20, in which the "take 10" and "take 20" rules already mean you don't have to roll under certain circumstances. If you want to be consistent about it, the "take 10" rule instantly changes this mechanic from fortune to karma, saying that your success or failure can be determined by whether your ability plus ten is sufficient, without the roll of a die. (But I'll concede that this could be considered a separate mechanic.)

The Take 10 and Take 20 rules/mechanic are a separate Karma mechanic which overlays the Fortune mechanic. They are there as a patch rule to cover the problems related to multiple rolls for combat with small changes (in hit points) and the non-combat rolls which are "one shot" only and make big changes (searching for secret doors, picking locks, and so on). These rules covers the problems of Fortune being too random! which frequently deprotagonises skilled characters.

Talk of the referee not allowing the action of the player doesn't make the meaningless die roll is nonsense...

I did this in the AD&D games I ran as a GM, because of nonsense like, "my character is so skilled that I automatically detect all secret doors, and unlock them all at once!" This is a natural consquence when there's no critical results (1 or 20 on D20), and there's large modifiers, which make the D20 roll meaningless; so players naturally assume that actions become automatic and cost zero time or effort. Rolling the dice (even when meaningless!) keeps characters and players in synch in time, so preventing abuse in the time dimension where a character does far more than other characters.

I'm not trying to be offensive, I don't see what the point of this kind of "sophistry" is?

[Andrew Martin]

Can a case be made for Drama being Karma with the numerical feature removed?

Sure! After all, take away the numbers from a Karma mechanic and then they're no longer Karma. :)

Alice's Strength: 100 versus Bob's Strength: 50 in a arm wrestling match.
-- Alice wins!

Alice's Strength versus Bob's Strength in a arm wrestling match.
-- Alice wins! (or maybe Bob wins! or they both break their arms! or whatever!)

[Andrew Martin]

Can a case be made for Drama being Karma with the numerical feature removed?

Sure! After all, take away the numbers from a Karma mechanic and then they're no longer Karma. :)

Take away the dice from a Fortune mechanic and now it's a Karma mechanic.

Take away the numbers from a Karma mechanic and now it's a Drama mechanic.

Take the drama away from a Drama mechanic and now it's no longer a mechanic at all! :)

[Ron Edwards]

Hi M.J.,

I'm beginning to think that we are differing on the very basics of blending vs. mixing. Your perception of the Amber description puzzles the hell out of me. I'm using it to show that resolution component X is (a) primary and (b) Karma-based, and that resolution component Y is (b) secondary and (c) Drama-based. This is a DFK-mixed system, as most systems are.

I don't think it has anything to do with blending in the sense of your interpretation of dice rolls modified by fixed-numbers. There are two acts in the Amber example, and which is being employed is very clear in play that matches the text (not all Amber play does), as well as which constitutes the "primary" and which constitutes the "tweaker."

The dice example isn't any such thing: you have a (say) 3d6 roll, and the attribute (or whatever) provides the foundation for the randomized addition. One can't play with either the dice roll alone or the attribute/modifier alone; there is no primary and no secondary, just a single Fortune mechanic operating according to system-derived parameters.

Andrew & Jack, I agree with that hierarchical presentation; it makes a lot of sense.

Best,
Ron