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

[Emily Care]

I further think we should try and figure out if there are any other similar classifications.

Another possible technique would be guessing.  Guessing a pre-written number or word, a secretly rolled die, or a variant of three card monty.  Then again, this could either be classed as skill, karma or fortune depending on the specific use.

I don't know of any games off hand that use it, but I've been musing about what kinds of non-dice mechanics get used in games like 20 questions that I could adapt for rpg.

best,
Em

edited one time to add: I forgot, Soap has Secrets that get guessed.

[Lee Short]

I further think we should try and figure out if there are any other similar classifications.

Another possible technique would be guessing.  Guessing a pre-written number or word, a secretly rolled die, or a variant of three card monty.  Then again, this could either be classed as skill, karma or fortune depending on the specific use.

I've seen the "guess-a-number" method used to generate die rolls for various games (AD&D,etc.) when dice are not available/inconvenient, for example on road trips.  To generate a d20 result, the GM picks a number and the player picks a number.  They are added together; if the result is over 20, then 20 is subtracted.

[Emily Care]

So it's really just another form of fortune. Arbitrariness standing in for randomization.  

Guessing a secret is much like a riddle, so would be skill, if anything.

Cool.

[Andrew Morris]

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?

It's not really either, but if you're dying to say something on one of those two points, go ahead. The topic is really whether DFK is a useful system of classification. I've proposed that Skill is valid as another category alongside DFK, so that's open for discussion too.

Emily, there's a thread a while back that discusses DFK and how it relates to Rock, Paper, Scissors. If I recall correctly, that's where Walt Freitag mentions Skill for the first time as another category.

[kenjib]

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.

Sorry to respond to this a bit late, but I don't that there is any distinction here.  Why is being good at playing hangman any different than being good at playing the advanced form of rock-paper-scissors meets chicken that is TROS combat?  Furthermore, I wouldn't go so far as to say that the mechanics, when stripped of their contextual description, in Riddle of Steel are not very traditional at all compared to most other RPGs.  So what if you took Hangman but changed all of the details to make it fit the theme of the game better?

For example, here is a resolution mechanic based on hangman with a different contextual description.  It is a rule for dispelling magical wards:

Take 26 different runes.  Each ward has a certain combination of runes.  In order to dispell a ward you have to guess the which combination it uses but you only know the length of the combination when you begin.  You may guess one rune each turn.  If that rune is present in the combination it is revealed to you.  If not, you suffer one setback.  In order to dispel the ward you must guess which combination the spell uses before your number of setbacks exceeds 7.

This is basically hangman dressed up in different terminology.  If you wanted to get fancy you could add an element of karma by replacing the number 7 with a mana score.  I don't see how this is really different, categorically, from the TROS combat rules.  Is this distinction really all about the color used to describe the mechanics and whether they map to their counterparts in the SiS?

If there is a "Skill" mechanic added to DFK, I think that they would play a very large factor in the TROS combat rules, just as they would in a "shoot hoops" resolution system.

[kenjib]

Rules mechanics are there to arbitrate disagreement.  That's what DFK is really about, right?  So what is a useful frame for classifying these mechanics?

I would say that the frame that appears most immediately useful is in determining where authority lies:  Who gets to make the decision?  Who gets to decide who wins?  Without this issue there is no need for any resolution mechanics.

Based on this, I think that there are two axes which define the continuum of how authority is distributed in a mechanic:

Axis 1:  Authority is independent of content within the SiS or subject to content within the SiS.

Axis 2:  Authority is independent of player influence or subject to player influence.

Any mechanic could then be plotted on a two dimensional graph.  The four extremes would be:

1.  Subject to SiS and independent of player influence = karma
2.  Independent of SiS and independent of player influence = fortune
3.  Subject to  SiS and subject to player influence = drama
4.  Independent of the SiS and subject to player influence = skill

This means that "Skill" would take on the role of some aspects of resolution formerly defined in the domain of drama, such as the ability to effectively whine, cajole, plead, and bully other people into letting you have your way.  ;-)

Mechanics which are plotted in any of the exact corners of this graph probably do not exist at all.  This is because a resolution in actual play is not the same as a resolution in the system.  Any given resolution in play is far more than the single mechanic provided by the system for that act of resolution.  Rather, it is a culimination of all of the resolutions that have come before it, as well as the social contract defined entirely outside of the system.  What this means is that every act of conflict resolution in a game uses different rules based on the history and interaction of rules that have led up to that resolution.

So, to use an earlier example, I roll to-hit in D&D.  What is the mechanic being used?  Here are some factors involved:

1.  Roll of the dice.
2.  Your attack bonus.
2.1.  Which class you chose.
2.2.  Your equipment.
2.2.1.  Are you allowed to buy magical equipment from the book, or only use what you find, or only chose from "ye old magic shoppe" that has X list of items available?
2.2.2.  Did you take the weapon focus feat?
2.2.2.1.  Are you using the weapon specified by the weapon focus feat?
2.2.3.  What is your strength score?
2.2.3.1.  If you have weapon finesse is your dex bonus higher than your strength bonus and are you using a finesse-able weapon?
2.2.3.2.  Did you use rolling or point-buy during character creation?
2.2.3.3.  Did you increase your strength and/or dexterity at levels 4, 8, 12, 16, and/or 20?
2.3.  Are you flanking?
2.3.1.  Did the DM chose a monster immune to flanking?
2.3.2.  Did the DM chose an environment where flanking is not possible, such as a narrow corridor?
3.  The armor class of the target
3.1.  What equipment the target has
3.2.  The condition of the target
3.2.1.  Is the target flatfooted?
3.2.1.1.  Did you spot the target?
3.2.1.1.1.  What is your spot score?
3.2.1.1.2.  Did the DM decide that your opponent is laying in ambush?
3.2.1.1.2.1.  If so, what is your opponent's hide score?
3.2.1.1.2.2.  If not, what is your opponent's spot score?
3.2.1.2.  Did you win initiative?
3.2.1.2.1.  Do you choose improved initiative?
3.2.1.2.2.  What is your dex modifier?
4.  Are we using house rules?
4.x  This effects everything else!

This is only a very small subset of all the factors that go into this single resolution.

The exact configuration of which of these factors are relevant depends on the history of previous conflict resolution.  Is it possible for there to be an act of resolution which is independent of all previous acts of resolution?  I suspect not.

It is the interplay and conflict of authority within a given moment of resolution that guides the social contract by which it resolved.  This means that it has a large impact on whether, for example, a game has a narrative, gamist, or simulationist bent.

[M. J. Young]

I've a quibble about words. Kenjib, what it is that you call

determining where authority lies

we call distributing credibility.

Authority has been set aside to mean references used to support credibility--rules texts, world descriptions, character sheets, die rolls, charts, are all authorities to which players refer to bolster their credibility. Credibility is the degree to which an individual player is perceived by the group as having the right to define some aspect of the content of the shared imagined space.

Also, you toss in the word "system", but I'm not certain what you mean when you use it in that context. Commonly, system here means the means by which credibility is distributed and supported in determining the content of the shared imagined space. Rules and mechanics are drawn into system, but social structure and interaction are at least as much part of it, if not more.

Otherwise, good post.

--M. J. Young

[kenjib]

Oops!  Sorry about that.  Here is my mapping from "oops wrong lingo-ese" to forge-speak:

authority = credibility
system = rules

Hopefully it didn't detract from the comprehensibility of my post.

[greyorm]

Why is being good at playing hangman any different than being good at playing the advanced form of rock-paper-scissors meets chicken that is TROS combat?

I'm thinking for the same reason my notation that card-based resolution mechanics would not be Skill was shot down: JMendes said, "strategic acumen in dealing with the allotted resources doesn't count as skill." TROS combat deals in strategic resource management, which is why it would not be a Skill-based resolution mechanic.

I don't know that I entirely agree with that, but I'm willing to go with it for the moment.

[Andrew Morris]

Right, as I'm using the term Skill, it would not (as JMendes points out) apply to the ability to use/abuse a system mechanic. I know a guy who can throw dice (six-siders, at least -- I've never seen him do it with anything else) and almost always call the value it'll show before he tosses them. Does this mean a die-roll resolution system is Skill, not Fortune, because ability can alter the results? No, of course not. If a general uses his knowledge of chess to formulate a battle strategy, does that mean he's playing chess? Again, no. Chess remains chess, and battle remains battle. The fact that one may provide insight into the other doesn't change the categorization of each.

The real central question of this thread is whether DFK is still valid, or if something else does the job better. Discussions of Skill as a fourth category would be better suited over in this thread.

[Grover]

Many games have such inadequate rules for social interation that players (in my experience) choose to neglect them, and instead resolve social interactions by simply role-playing it out.  This effectively means that more charismatic players have more charismatic characters.  Is this an example of Skill?

[Andrew Morris]

That's a good question. But I'd be inclined to say no, because the DFK system is focused on the intent of the mechanics, I think.

Again, though, let's take talk about Skill over to this thread and keep this one focused on the validity of DFK as a useful tool. I really like Skill and want to discuss it more, but the whole point of this thread is to address the broader issue of DFK as a tool for game designers. It's gone off topic a bit, however, so here are some examples of what kind of talk fits in which thread.

This Thread (DFK evangelism/criticism)[/u]
DFK is the best way to classify resolution mechanics, for these reasons!
DFK sucks, and this idea is better, for these reasons!

The Other Thread (Working within DFK)[/u]
Any discussions about Skill
DFK could use/doesn't need any more categories.
DFK is good, but needs to fixed in this way.
I've got a great idea for a category that covers the other stuff DFK doesn't!

[LordSmerf]

To answer the question "Is DFK still valid?" I think we first must ask "What does DFK do for us?"

I realized that the only answer that I could come up with was "It provides a system of categories for resolution mechanics."  It's a classification system based on, what exactly?  DFK is valuable because it is a classification system, and I can't think of another one, but that doesn't mean that it's a good classification system.  At the moment, I'm thinking that it's not.

Thomas

[Andrew Morris]

Thomas, that's more what I was looking for when I started this thread. I'd like to hear more about why you feel DFK isn't a good classification system when you have a chance to comment further.

As to the question you raised ("It's a classification system based on, what exactly?"), I'd say it's based on immediately identifiable core qualities. What I mean by that is we (your average gamers/game designers)look at rolling dice, comparing scores, and resolution by speaking as three distinict categories, distinct because of their quintessential characteristic. All DFK does is lump similar methods together and name them (at least, that's my take).

Others have stated that they have a different viewpoint on what DFK is/does. John Kim says (over here) that Drama and Karma are a split defined by reference to game traits or not, with Fortune being an unrelated category defined by its use of randomizers. Now, that viewpoint is interesting because it makes DFK seem a little shaky to me. It's one thing to define a set of categories based on central characteristics. It's another to define a set of categories based on dichotomies. Either one is useful and valid, but mixing them together seems like a broken system to me.

[John Kim]

Well, here's my two cents.  DFK is not useful to me because it makes no distinctions between the levels of things.  I personally think about resolution mechanics in terms of the relative importance of several factors:

1) Importance of randomizer -- i.e. variation of the roll compared to skill
2) Importance of skill and/or fixed game stats
3) Importance of resource allocation (i.e. perversity points, hero points, etc.)
4) Importance of freeform description

So, for example, DFK does not take into consideration any sort of resource spending (i.e. hero points, perversity points, dice pool allocations, etc.).  Any randomness is lumped together in Fortune.  Yet I think such resource spending can make a big difference in a game.  Actually, it occurs to me that this was a part of my old rgfa diceless FAQ. (cf. http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/rgfa/">rgfa info).  From there:

Q: How does the GM make decisions?

That varies with the system, the GM, the group contract, and so forth.  In general, action resolution can be based on a great variety of input factors.  What follows is an outline of some of the factors which can go into action resolution -

(A) Reality/Genre:  This is just the GM's judgement of what is the most reasonable outcome given the understood "reality" of the situation -- including genre and setting-specific laws (like magic).  This is actually the most common form of resolution in any game - if a character tries to walk through the woods, the GM just says it happens.  

(B) Mechanics:  This is game-mechanical constructs (which may represent the genre-reality, but which are more than just a general understanding).  Note that this does *not* have to involve dice.  CORPS and _Vampire_ both use some diceless, mechanical action resolution.  Spending Plot Points (or Hero Points, Willpower, etc.) is also a mechanic.  

(C) Description:  In this case, _how_ the player describes his character's action has a big effect on the outcome.  This involves the player heavily in the action -- but it also tends to emphasize player skill rather than character skill (i.e. if a given player is very good at describing combat tactics, then his character is better at combat).  

(D) Plot:  As _Theatrix_ describes it, "Does the plot require a given outcome?"  The GM sets up a plot beforehand, and if a given result is required for the plot to work, he chooses that result.  This is the factor most often associated with "railroading".  

(E) Drama:  This is a free-wheeling sense of drama or comedy/fun, as mediated by the GM.  For example, a chandelier swing in a swashbuckling game may naturally succeed because it is dramatically appropriate.  It has nothing to do with the written plot, but it fits.  

(F) Meta-game:  This is a catch-all category for concerns of the GM and players.  A gamble may succeed because it is getting late in the evening and people want to go home.  Certain issues may be avoided because some players find them offensive.  A PC may disappear because the player can't show Etcetera.  

(G) Group Consensus (from Sarah Kahn):  This is a sort of combination of Reality and Description resolution, in which the entire group combines efforts to determine what the "expert swordsman's" best strategy really would BE when the player of the swordsman knows nothing of combat.  It is often use to counteract the problems of "description" resolution.  It often takes the form of "he who knows the subject best is empowered to define the reality."  

(H) Dice:  Technically dice will not be used in a "diceless" game, but I included them to be completist, and to show how they are just one among a large number of factors.  Dice can be used as additional input into any number of resolutions.  Mechanics often call for die rolls, but a mechanicless game can also use dice to represent random factors (The rule being, say, "High good, low bad").  

Besides the variety of input, action resolution can be different in method or style of handling -- like how the results are presented.  For example, even if two GM's use the same mechanics and die rolls: one might describe to players using only descriptive terms, and he keeps the character sheet and die rolls to himself.

So this was originally phrased in terms of the GM's decision -- but as point G shows is really a broader principle.  i.e. Regardless of who ends up deciding, how does the decision get made?  What factors are important?  Now, resource management (i.e. point/chip spending) is missing from the above.  Also, it doesn't distinguish between numerical stat comparison and qualitative comparisons.  But this sort of breakdown by factors is what I think is important in analyzing a resolution mechanic.