Drama, Fortune, Karma -- Still valid? [split]

[Andrew Morris]

Since the discussion on this thread is veering away from what I initially wanted to address, I decided to create this thread for discussing whether the Drama, Fortune, Karma model is valid as is, needs some changes, or should be replaced with something else.

Now, I'm definitely in category two -- I like DFK, but I don't think it covers everything. Others expressed different opinions in the original thread, and I think those opinions are valuable for discussion.

So, let's all talk about DFK and what we think the best option is. I'll go first:

What I Think[/b]
DFK is a useful tool that just needs to be enhanced/refined.

Why I Think That[/b]
1. DFK is easy to understand and use
2. Identifying naturally occurring trends and classifying them is more valuable than artificially created dichotomies that may create useless/unused categories
3. DFK covers most resolution mechanics
4. Folks are already familiar with DFK

What I Think We Should Do[/b]
I think we should include Skill as an equal category to DFK. I further think we should try and figure out if there are any other similar classifications. I don't think we should get into "hybrid" mechanics. From searching through old threads, it's pretty clear that the consensus on that is hybrid mechanics are more common than "pure" mechanics. Simply because one can bleed into or cross over into another category doesn't create the need for a new category.

Okay, that's my piece. Anyone else got something to say on this topic?

[Lxndr]

I would like to hear your definition of Skill.  DF and K already have pretty standardized definitions.  Skill, on the other hand, is pretty much just one capitalized letter in your post.

[Andrew Morris]

Sure thing, Alexander. I define Skill (with the capital) as a category of resolution mechanic that involves using real-world ability to determine in-game events or outcomes. Let me know if that needs more clarification or examples.

[Valamir]

Are you defining skill as including players ability to use the system to better advantage due to greater real world skill at manipulating the mechanics (like Riddle of Steel or Burning Wheel combat)?  Or are you defining skill as using actual real world abilities not traditionally thought of as game mechanics?...like say shooting hoops, or playing a game of Hangman as your game's resolution system.

[Andrew Morris]

The latter, Ralph. Here's a couple of examples from the other DFK thread.

1) In a hypothetical boffer LARP, the only mechanic is that if you are hit with a weapon, your character is dead. This is way more simple than most boffer LARPs, but it'll do for discussion.

2) In a table-top game, the only mechanic is that whoever can grab the "narration rock" first narrates the outcome for a specific period of time.

[groundhog]

Skill resolution seems a bit weighted to whomever chose what the Skill mechanic depends upon.

For boffer weapons, using them for combat makes enough sense, as boffer weapons are meant to give the rush and excitement of real weapons and to use similar techniques. That one person might be better at using boffer weapons is just something to deal with, or look for non-boffer LARP.

Grabbing a "narration rock" for a tabletop seems, though, is an even clearer example of what I'm talking about. It doesn't relate to the game as a boffer weapon does. It's arbitrary, and if one person is better at grabbing a rock and another is better at putting pennies into shotglasses then there's going to rightly be disagreement about which to use. I guess all social interactions could be settled by grabbing a rock, all combat could be settled by penny tossing, and everything else could default to throwing darts. That  would at least spread the skills around a bit.

One of the reasons to play RPGs, though, is so that people can build characters with skills they themselves don't have. Play then depends largely on the judicious use of those skills rather than the player having specific skills. The Skill mechanic as you've described it seems to promote a competition at a different level than most RPGs. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's not clear to me how well players would accept it.

[Andrew Morris]

Christopher, I don't see the fact that the second rule is unrelated to the in-game action as a bad thing, in and of itself. There could be many reasons why this is beneficial. And, people with more/better talents in real life will almost always have an advantage in any activiity. If I'm playing D&D, I don't complain because other players (who know the system better) have an advantage. I either accept it, or improve my own abilities. My skill at manipulating stats, choosing feats, etc. has no logical relation to my character's in-game abilities, but it affects my in-game effectiveness nonetheless.

I'm just putting out examples here, so folks know what I mean when I say Skill. I'm not putting any value on those examples or claiming that they are good for every or any game.

[greyorm]

Christopher, I'm not certain if your response indicates you do not feel the category is a valid category or not? Defining the category of Skill -- and any others not currently listed that might fit into the resolution schema -- is what this thread is about. I'm not a moderator, but I believe other concerns about Skill-based resolution mechanics would be better served in their own thread dedicated to that topic.

For my part, Andrew, what you are saying certainly makes sense as a category, as I do not see it easily being fitted into any of the other resolution methods. Interestingly, this would make certain types of card-based resolution mechanics a mixture of Fortune and Skill (luck of the draw followed by the skill at playing the cards to best effect), which would include all CCGs I am aware of personally.

[JMendes]

Hey, :)

this would make certain types of card-based resolution mechanics a mixture of Fortune and Skill (luck of the draw followed by the skill at playing the cards to best effect)

Erm... no. As per Andrew's definition and clarification above, strategic acumen in dealing with the allotted resources doesn't count as skill.

However, here's an example of a mixture of luck and skill:

Put a small breakfast tray on the floor, at least three feet away from everything. Stand twenty feet away from the tray. Throw five eight-sided dice, one at a time. After all dice have been thrown, add up the numbers that come up on those dice that remain on the tray only. Clear the tray. Opponent does the same thing. Highest total wins.

Heh. Sure. Why the hell not?

Cheers,

J.

[LordSmerf]

I don't know...  I just don't see "Skill" as a valid resolution type.  It seems that Skill really encompasses all sorts.  Can you get them to agree that you should win somehow (Drama)?  Can you set up the situation so that you can apply a score you know will beat the difficulty (Karma)?  Can you increase the odds in your favor (Fortune)?

So it seems that what you're talking about is not "skill" at all.  What you're really talking about is different ways of managing things.  Does that make sense?

Thomas

[M. J. Young]

For reasons I mentioned in the parent thread, I think that "Skill" is necessarily an aspect of karma. It's just using the superior ability of the player rather than that of the character to resolve the matter.

Also, as I presented in some detail on the parent thread, I think nearly all mechanics are hybrid--there are probably no pure fortune mechanics, and few if any pure karma or pure drama mechanics in practical use. (A pure drama mechanic would be one in which the person making the decision would not have to consider at all whether the outcome made sense in relation to stated character abilities. It is certainly the case that referee fiat is a drama mechanic, but it is also the case in practice it has to be justified based on karmic considerations.)

--M. J. Young

[Andrew Morris]

Yeah, I'm defining Skill as different than skll, here. That might be causing some of the confusion.

Skill = the (potential) category of resolution mechanics that uses real-world actions or event to determine in-game events or outcomes as the central mechanic.

skill = [traditional definition] the ability to use one's knowledge effectively and readily in execution or performance

Now, some examples (examples always help me out):

A game where you receive a random set of cards, then succeed or fail based on how well you use the cards (e.g. poker)
- Fortune and skill, but not Skill. The defining factor is that your options for resolution are determined by chance. The fact that you can do better or worse is just a measure of personal ability, not the core of the resolution mechanic. Traditional skill applies almost anywhere.

A game where you create a deck of cards from a set of available options, then receive a random set of cards from that deck, then succeed or fail based on how well you use the cards (e.g.  most CCGs)
- Skill and skill, but not Fortune. The defining factor is how you choose te set up your deck. Luck plays a part in how well you do, but it is not the core of the mechanic.

Boffer LARPs
- Karma, Skill, and skill. The combat systems are usually totally Skill (based on your real-world hitting the target or not) or Skill and Karma (set abilities that let you achieve different things at certain levels). The magic systems are almost always Karma.


So, Thomas, what you are saying makes sense, but I disagree. Yes, skill influences pretty much everything. So does luck, but it doesn't make other resolution mechanics Karma.

I'm not saying the lines aren't a little blurry at some times. Nor am I saying that hybrid systems aren't possible. They both are. In fact, as M. J. points out, most systems are hybrids.

The relevant questions for this thread are:

1) Does DFK cover all possibilities?
2) If not,  how should it be modified?
3) Is there a better system than DFK?

[contracycle]

Interesting.  With some reservations (as I agree with MJ about chess) I  venture that there are games that do this, and they do this for the specific purpose of training/developing that skill.

That looks to me like almost but not quite a resolution system; because the system actually serves to get you to perform the act, rather than judge you according to the performance of the act.

Say you had a game where you had to run up, kick a football into a net, and then move a token on a board depending on whether you got the ball in the net or not.  Say 1 space if you missed, 3 if you succeeded.  The idea then would be that kudos are awarded for succeeding on the board, which requires performance of the skill at the net.

This might be a kind of "exercise" category?

[Andrew Morris]

That looks to me like almost but not quite a resolution system; because the system actually serves to get you to perform the act, rather than judge you according to the performance of the act.

Contracycle, I'm not sure exactly what you are saying. Can you give some more explanation on this point? From your example, it seems that the system does judge your effectiveness based on your performance.

[komradebob]

One of the reasons to play RPGs, though, is so that people can build characters with skills they themselves don't have. Play then depends largely on the judicious use of those skills rather than the player having specific skills. The Skill mechanic as you've described it seems to promote a competition at a different level than most RPGs. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's not clear to me how well players would accept it.

So, to go a tiny bit off topic, is the issue here primarily that it is uncommon for TT RPGs to use Skill resolution techniques, rather than a question of whether such a category exists?

Off hand, riddles and puzzles in old school fantasy adventures strike me a s being somewhat what you're talking about, even if they have an in-game tie-in, assuming that it is the player's ability rather than the character's ability that matters.

If we want to go a bit further afield, I can think of at least 3 miniatures games that use some sort of Skill related resolution ( HG Wells Little Wars, Fletcher Pratt's Naval Rules, and some oldwest minis game that appeared in a Wargames Illustrated), and at least one sorta-kinda LARP ( SJ's Killer). All of these however have an "excersise" that relates in some fashion to the theme of the game.

Robert