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

[Vaxalon]

I will weigh in here, and say that a Skill resolution system could, concievably exist.

When I was in sixth grade, we had an "Oregon Trail" game that lasted the whole series.  Each member of the class kept records as to the health of his livestock, the supplies and gear he had on his wagon, and even the health of the people in his fictional family.  We were presented with challenges once a week, that would affect the welfare of our families.  These could be anything from vocabulary tests to essays to quizzes.  We could also make decisions (as a group; we were not allowed to split up the wagon train) that would also affect our progress.

At one point, our group arrived late to a mountain pass; we could either risk going through the pass and get hit by a storm, or we could turn back and wait until the following year.  Our class (much to my chagrin) opted to try for the pass.  "Donner, party of four?  Donner, party of four."  In order to survive the ordeal, we were required to stand eight feet from a garbage pail, put a single die on one FOOT, and use that foot to put the die into the bucket.  We could either hop forward, or just toss it, but if the foot or the die hit the ground, our whole "family" died in the pass.

I believe that yes, a Skill mechanic is entirely possible... though not really germaine to the kind of roleplaying games that we usually think of.

[greyorm]

If DFK is not valid, then what is the alternative? How does DFK specifically fail? What is so broken about DFK that it cannot be expanded to include a greater depth -- ignoring for the moment adding to its breadth.

Claiming DFK is "broken" or "doesn't work" in such an instance is, for me, throwing out the baby with the bathwater (for example, for me, John's criticism of the DFK system falls into this category of criticism -- level of importance seems like an axis along which the resolution systems can fall, but it is not useful as a categorization of said systems).

[LordSmerf]

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. -[Emphasis added, Thomas]

You've hit on it exactly!  The problem is what I highlighted: DFK is an identification based on "Oh yeah, that's obvious" as opposed to any actual definable quality.

The problems go even further than that.  The stuff John discussed (three posts up) definitely matters.  Additionally, DFK isn't really useful except as an identifier.  In that sense it's about as useful as Stance Theory.  That is to say, it helps us acknowledge that, yes, there are different ways of doing things.  It helps us discuss those different ways.  But it definitely does not make any predictions, or even allow predictions to be made.

What does having a game based primarily on Fortune do to play?  There's no way to know because there are too many factors that just aren't accounted for.

So, I guess my stance is: as a set of vocabulary (that is, a way to describe what's going on generally) DFK is fine, but as an actual classification system it sucks.

EDIT: Crossposted with Greyorm

Thomas

[groundhog]

Sorry for being away form the discussion for a while, as I was out of town for the holiday weekend.

There were a couple of questions posed to me about what I think of Skill (uppercase, as opposed to character skills). Well, I think Skill as a resolution mechanic is not just possible but entirely valid. The shortcomings I mentioned I don't think make it any less valid, only less desirable for certain players.

Tossing dice onto a tray, throwing darts at a dartboard, throwing horseshoes, arm wrestling, dropping grains of rice from above one's head into a shotglass, or whatever are completely legitimate ways to determine success or failure in an RPG. They are, however, both unusual and give a player a Gamist advantage for something he himself can physically do better in the real world. If all the players in your group accept the idea that real-world stength and coordination should matter in an RPG and that noone will be unduly helped or hindered compared to his fellow players then I say go for a Skill resolution mechanic. Personally, I was a fan of the game show Double Dare, which allowed people to answer trivia and general knowledge questions or perform a physical challenge in order to accumulate points. I don't rule out some similar mixing of methods in RPGs.

I see two really useful places for Skill as a resolution mechanic in combination with others.  First, an opposed action between two player characters could come down to a challenge to see who does better at a particular activity in real life. Second, a player who's looking for an exceptional success or even a simple success against terrible odds could be assigned a difficult real-life test of skill instead of depending on a random die roll or spending enough of a valuable in-game resource to assure success.

Additionally, maybe there could even be a Karma resource in a game called Luck or somesuch which is determined every session on a 1-20 scale by throwing a dart at a dartboard. Hit a 20 on the dartboard, get 20 Luck points this session. Hit a one, and get one point. Hit a bullseye, and maybe you get 50. I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere out there people are playing poker or craps with in-game resources -- beat me at a hand of real-world poker, and you get a pot filled with in-game cash, equipment, or maybe even magical energy, into which we both placed bets. Games like craps or blackjack where there is a house player make sense if the players bet resources and the GM is the house -- all resources the GM gets go to unfriendly NPCs and/or monsters.

[Andrew Morris]

John, does the point that Drama and Karma are the inverse of each other (which you make in the other DFK thread), with Fortune being an unrelated category, indicate that DFK needs some fixing? I'd be inclined to say yes, but I have a hard time articulating why, other than the fact that it seems the classification system is a bit mixed.

[M. J. Young]

I suppose I'm a bit confused concerning what we expect the classification system actually to do. DFK "works" for me, because it does what it needs to do.

Before I'd encountered the terms in Ron's System Does Matter article at Gaming Outpost c.1998 I had certainly used all three means of resolution; but if you'd asked me about the mechanics of any game, I would automatically have described how the dice were used. DFK made me aware that there were other mechanics in the games I played besides dice, and further that there were two distinct types of such mechanics--those which relied primarily on objective character scores and those which relied primarily on subjective judgments.

Later, when I read Erick Wujcik's Dice and Diceless article here, my understanding of DFK enabled me to realize that he was compacting two different kinds of resolution systems--karma and drama--into one called "diceless".

Ultimately, what DFK does for me is keep me aware that there are different means of solving the same problems in games, and that the options go beyond deciding what kind of dice curves to create or whether to use cards. Karma and drama options are open to us.

I don't have to be thinking in terms of the categories while I'm designing; I just need to be aware that thinking in terms of how to set up fortune-based mechanics is limiting, and the best solutions for some game design problems might be found in some non-fortune system.

What else do you expect the categories to do?

I see some value in John's categories as analytical tools for understanding how a game works, and possibly as examples of approaches that have been used by others; but I don't see that level of refinement as particularly more valuable than DFK in terms of forcing us to think outside our usual approaches. Having three simple categories does that well, in my opinion; having a lot of nuances is useful once we've decided which way we want to go generally, but it's easier to lose sight of the basic distinctions, which I think DFK preserves.

--M. J. Young

[LordSmerf]

After some thought I've come to the conclusion that I have the same problems with DFK that I have with Stances.  That is: they are incredibly useful for exactly what MJ said.  They jump up and down and say "Hey, there are more ways to do this!"

And at that, they do a great job.  Stance theory says "Hey, anyone can manipulate the environment, it's okay!"  DFK says "There's more at work here than dice, and that's okay!"

Most people seem fine with Stances doing just that, waving the flag of what is possible.  DFK does the same thing with resolution.  It doesn't have to be comprehensive, it just has to say "there's more out there."  If we want something more from it, well, something's gotta give.

Personally, I'm fine with it as it is because I don't know what more I would want from it.  If you could point out something that would be useful, but that it clearly doesn't do, I'd be all for a replacement...

Thomas

[Andrew Morris]

Ultimately, what DFK does for me is keep me aware that there are different means of solving the same problems in games, and that the options go beyond deciding what kind of dice curves to create or whether to use cards. Karma and drama options are open to us.

They jump up and down and say "Hey, there are more ways to do this!" ... Personally, I'm fine with it as it is because I don't know what more I would want from it. If you could point out something that would be useful, but that it clearly doesn't do, I'd be all for a replacement...

Hmm...I don't know. It seems to me that if you have a classification system, it should be as inclusive as possible. Serving the purpose of pointing out that there are other options can just as easily be accomplished by a theory or statement, without the need for any actual classification. I'm a little thrown by a classification system that has a primary function other than classification.

[greyorm]

Why throw out DFK? Why not simply make it DFKS?

We're talking about classifying methods of resolution here, right? What's specifically broken with the DFK categorization?

Hrm...I still don't understand anyone's actual objection to it. Thus, please correct me in the following: it sounds to me that DFK is believed not to work because it isn't inclusive enough. Or, by example, complaining that using a PC/Mac categorization scheme is broken because it doesn't detail everything about an individual computer.

Is that close to the idea being expressed about the (lack of) utility of DFK?

[groundhog]

I think geryorm is right. As a matter of fact, the only thing different really between F and S is the level of randomness. In a Fortune mechanic, someone might be able to roll dice a little better than another, but dice are still pretty random and uncertain. With a Skill mechanic, one person is pretty likely to either be better or get better at certain Skill-related tasks. If not, then it's just a Fortune mechanic using something other than dice. So, using DFKS instead of just DFK makes plenty of sense to me.

If another type of mechanic comes along, we can argue whether or not that's different enough to be considered at that time.  As for Skill, though, I think it's different enough from Fortune that it may deserve its own category -- and it will if it becomes common enough and needs to be refered to as something other than "Game X's replacement for Fortune mechanics".

[LordSmerf]

Hrm...I still don't understand anyone's actual objection to it. Thus, please correct me in the following: it sounds to me that DFK is believed not to work because it isn't inclusive enough. Or, by example, complaining that using a PC/Mac categorization scheme is broken because it doesn't detail everything about an individual computer.

Actually, the problem I have with DFK as a classification system is that the categories are completely arbitrary.  It's very similar to the Stance split: Actor/Author/Director.  No single question can tell you the full story, for example: Is there a randomizer involved?  Yes=Fortune, No=Go to question 2: Are you comparing recorded values?  Yes=Karma, No=Drama.

It turns out that this is just a pair of stacked dichotemies.  That doesn't make them useless, just as Stances aren't useless, but it does make them far less useful.

Hmm...I don't know. It seems to me that if you have a classification system, it should be as inclusive as possible. Serving the purpose of pointing out that there are other options can just as easily be accomplished by a theory or statement, without the need for any actual classification. I'm a little thrown by a classification system that has a primary function other than classification.

Well, here's the thing.  I'm not sure I see the need for a classification system here.  Just as we don't really need to classify Stances.  That's what I'm getting at, if I can be convinced that there are serious benefits to coming up with a solid classification system for resolution mechanics then I would be interested in putting in the effort to get one generated.

Thomas

[The God of the Machine]

Being a newcomer to the Forge but a long-time RPG theorizer, I'm simply amazed at the length and breadth of big words that you guys use to describe absolutely nothing.  It's like a bureaucrat's wet dream here.

So if I (in my infinite stupidity) am able to discern the timbre of this discussion, it has to do with the validity of player skill-based resolution?  So far I'm seeing way too many lemmings nodding in the affirmative to this before jumping off the cliff so I'll try to save as many of you furry bundles of love as I can.  It won't work.  At least, not unless you're a specific kinda gamer, the one that is referred to on other posts as a "gamist".  Yeah basing task resolution on real-life feats of skill works for a beer-and-pretzels kinda game, like determining how well your character can decipher an arcane chart by how long you the player can balance all the core Rolemaster products on your face.  It's cute, but the reason for our hobby to us simulationists and narrativists, as some astute mind pointed out earlier in the post, is to...*ahem*...play a role...not to play kick-the-dice-in-the-bucket or dodge-dice or spin-the-dice or what-have-you.  Hell, the only reason games have dice or cards as a skill resolution system is to represent the impartial nature of fortune that affects everyone alive.  Allowing tasks to be resolved with player skill is making even fortune partial.   Take away that aspect of chance and we're relying on things like athletic skill and GM fiat exclusively, and we might as well go back to playing Cowboys and Injuns (or Amber RPG, which is probably more ridiculous)

This is not to say that player skill should not have any impact on the gameplay at all.  To the contrary, I think all games should reward good gamesmanship, which in RPGs amounts to good knowledge of the game, convincing character portrayals and smart play.  People who play thusly should be rewarded above the other players, either with a longevitous character or more experience points or such.  Also, I am not adverse, and am actually a big fan of augmenting a character's action based on the skill of the player.  If a player is a competent orator and his character has to give a speech to convince the NPCs, I will allow the player to write and deliver the speech as his character would, and if the product is admirable I'll give the player a hefty bonus to his roll.  Likewise, if a player is an experienced fencer and wishes to demonstrate a maneuver he would like to execute on a drunken rake, based on the proficiency of the demonstration I would likewise give the fencing player a bonus to HIS roll.  Both are examples of actions that do not reward the players for possessing a skill that is lost to the rest of the group, but actions which reward the players for enriching the game by virtue of their experience.  

Notice, however, I said I'm a big fan of AUGMENTATION, but NOT having such displays be the crux of action resolution.  If skill resolution inside the game is accomplished by an analogous skill use outside the game, such as success in combat being resolved by a display of fencing technique bv the player, players would invariably have to have characters who possess the players skill and would thus not be "role-playing" as much as "acting like themselves".  Otherwise, if skill resolution inside the game is NOT predicated on a mirrored skill use but another arbitrary skill, such as jumping a chasm again by balancing Rolemaster on one's countanance, the game then goes to NOT the best player, but the person with the flattest face.  

In any case, randomization is preferable as the underlying resolution mechanic so everyone has a chance to play whatever they want without fear of their own idiosyncracies and disabilities.  And again, the advantages a player has in any system should be represented by the characters statistics, and the gamer's skill in one thing and one thing only:  Role-playing.

[Andrew Morris]

So if I (in my infinite stupidity) am able to discern the timbre of this discussion, it has to do with the validity of player skill-based resolution?

No, that is one of the main points over here. This thread is for discussing whether DFK is a useful tool for game design. And, if not, is there something better that exists or needs to be created? It's not really for Skill discussions, though you might reference Skill as part of addressing the point of this thread.

[The God of the Machine]

Thanks for clearing that up.  Again, my stupidity knows no earthly limits.

That DFK think seems like a lot of pigeonholing to me.  Maybe I'm too young, but I've never seen a purely Fortune game ever.  Likewise, never seen a system where you didn't have to make a statement to do something (with the exception of the Children of a Lesser God RPG, published by FASA in the mid '80s, I believe, where everyone had to communicate in American Sign Language and weird, ululating grunts).  I don't know if this DFK framework is a very good tool, since pretty much every RPG has to have all three in order to work, although I don't know why Tweet called something as obvious as "Characteristics" or "Statistics" "Karma".

[Andrew Morris]

Yes, hybrid systems are the norm. If you're interested in that as a topic, look at some of the older threads on DFK -- the consensus reached was pretty much what you stated here.