Some thoughts on the Karma/Fortune distinction

[Victor Gijsbers]

This might be nothing new, but I hope you'll forgive me for not checking every thread ever written here in order to find out. :) I just realised that Karma, Fortune and Drama are not unambigous in the sense that every resolution mechanics is either Karma, or Fortune, or Drama. For clarity, let me quote Ron's definitions:

Drama resolution relies on asserted statements without reference to listed attributes or quantitative elements.
Karma resolution relies on referring to listed attributes or quantitative elements without a random element.
Fortune resolution relies on utilizing a random device of some kind, usually delimited by quantitative scores of some kind.

Let's look at the following resolution mechanic. Whenever there is a conflict between A and B, an opposed roll is made in the following way: A has a certain relevant skill, S(A), with value f(S(A)). B has a certain relevant skill, S(B), with value f(S(B)). Both roll a d4 and add it to their skill's value. He who rolle higher wins. The total difference doesn't matter; whether A has 4 and B has 5 or A has 4 and B had 23 makes no difference.

My claim is that this resolution mechanic is a hybrid between Fortune and Karma. As long as the difference between f(S(A)) and f(S(B)) is smaller than 4, it is a fortune mechanic since there is a random element. But as soon as the difference is 4 or greater, the random element disappears: it has become a Karma mechanic.

Similar, though maybe more contrived, examples can be thought up concerning Drama/Karma and Drama/Fortune.

Let me be very clear: I don't think this is a weak point of the Karma/Drama/Fortune distinction. But I think two things are important:
1) The realisation that DFK is not some kind of three-valued logic in the sense that every resolution mechanics is either Karma, or Fortune, or Drama.
2) The question whether using hybrid mechanics can serve a goal in RPG-design.

I think it can. The example I gave has probably been used hundreds of times by RPG designers wishing to ensure that a) someone who isn't the best can still win through sheer luck and b) someone who is much better than someone else will always win. In a sense, the mechanic creates some unpredictability, while ensuring that you can't be extremely lucky or unlucky. The hybrid mechanic is used to bring together two competing desires (unpredictability of fortune and predictability of skill). This seems very natural.

But could a hybrid mechanic also be useful to accomplish something else than striking a balance between two different goals? Or is the 'hybridness' of the mechanic always accompanied by a 'hybridness' of the goal to be accomplished with it?

[Ben Lehman]

This might be nothing new, but I hope you'll forgive me for not checking every thread ever written here in order to find out. :) I just realised that Karma, Fortune and Drama are not unambigous in the sense that every resolution mechanics is either Karma, or Fortune, or Drama.

BL>  This is true.  I would go so far as to say that nearly every game, in play at least, factors in all three (and also has resources, which I think is a seperate item, see my "resources and resolutions" thread.)
I don't know if it's verbotten to talk about it here, but as an example, d20 uses a karma - fortune mechanic that is very fortune based at low power and becomes very karma based at high power.  (Base scores = karma.  Rolled value = fortune).  Eventually, the system becomes (essentially) entirely Karma based.  Cyberpunk 2.0.2.0. used a similar mechanic.  Cyberpunk also has expenditures in the form of Luck.

      In fact, it's pretty difficult to find a game that doesn't use all or at least most of them.  I think that a game that strictly used one of them would be boring.  Fortune without Karma would be tantamount to coin-flipping (everyone has equal chances to succeed at all things) or unmodified P-R-S.  Karma without Fortune or Drama is just "I win -- no chance."  Strict Drama perhaps has the best chance to succeed, as long as there aren't metagame social problems, and strict Expenditure (Universalis, say) also has some good points, but lacks character or player distinction.

     Just taking your idea and riffing on it.

yrs--
--BL

P.S.  The idea of Expenditure is a seperate resolution mechanic from Karma is pretty much just mine, so feel free to ignore those parts of the post.

[Mike Holmes]

Yep, that's long been the consensus. DFK is mostly important in talking about specific mechanics, and even then one can talk about them in combination.

Many standard resolution use all three forms like this:

Karma - add stats and skills in a linear fashion.
Fortune - roll dice and add the Karma portion. Compare to Target Number.
Drama - narrate outcome of effects in an interesting way, including minor mechanical effects for next "round".

So, yes, the mixing is common.

Note that one could take the Karma portion out of the above system by having stats and skills add to a dice pool. And if effects must be read off a chart vebatim, or there were not minor mechanical effects, then there would be no Drama resolution (just narration).

This is the sort of way that you can use the terms in detail. In practice, however, the terms usually get used to describe the most important method in terms of outcome. Thus most standard sytems are referred to as "fortune" systems because there is a significant fortune element at work. Whereas something like Amber is more "Karma-ish" as it tries to do away with randomization. Etc.

The most important point abot these things in the general theory, however, is that they are not linked to particular modes of play. There is a general assumption that such links exist, but the only association is historical, if at all. There is no reason why one can't have a very Drama based Sim game, or a Karma based Gamist game, or a Fourtune based Narrativist game.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

My essay is pretty blunt about the observation that DFK components are combined in most, in fact the vast majority, of role-playing systems. I'm not sure what the insight is here, Victor. I mean, it's nice that you get it, but "it" is non-controversial.

Side note: everyone, talk about D20 all you want. Where people get the idea that it's somehow off-topic at the Forge is beyond me.

Best,
Ron