Blended Mechanics?

[M. J. Young]

I disagree with you. As I have more-or-less interpreted the terms from Everway, they go like this:

1) Fortune = use of a randomizing mechanic of any distribution at all. 50/50, 100:1, whatever.

2) Karma = reference to a fixed value.

3) Drama = just sayin', without reference to quantitative values.

These are clean, distinct categories, and although a system might combine them, a specific mechanic does not (i.e. it's one of the three).

I've often suspected that people might think that fixed modifiers to a randomizing mechanic constituted a "Karma influence," and have waited patiently to correct it if it ever cropped up.

There are few purely fortune systems. Even a simple chart that provides different chance to hit for more experienced characters is a karma factor.

I think this disagreement significant enough to split to a new thread; you can find the rest of the quotes under http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4615">The Box -- an idea for clarifying terminology.

I have read, several times, and on these forums, the complaint that D&D3E shifts over time from being a highly fortune to a highly karma system. I understand exactly what that means. If you are low level, your chance of success might be 5+D20, in which case most of what is involved in whether you succeed is going to be that very iffy die roll. On the other hand, if you get to the point where your chance of success is 80+d20, that die roll means a lot less compared to your base chance. Most of the things that you hoped you had some chance of doing when you started are now automatic--that is, if you needed a 25 to succeed at a certain task, you had a 5% chance of doing so then, and now you won't be asked to roll the dice. Yet it is, in a sense, the same mechanic--it has just shifted from being largely fortune to being largely karma.

I can't help thinking that non-random modifiers on a fortune system are a dilution of the fortune nature of that system, whether they are the sort that spring from other game values and mechanics (thus karma) or merely the referee's decision that "well, you're the PC, so I'll bonus that roll +5, which makes it a success" (drama). Yet Ron clearly thinks otherwise. He insists that if there is any fortune element in the system, it is purely fortune.

I could create absurd examples in which the modifiers swallow the die roll; at some point it seems to me that you would have to conclude the die roll was entirely inconsequential, and the system had become in essence a karma system (perhaps the example above is sufficient?). But if it is possible for the modifiers to so overwhelm the dice that they no longer matter to the outcome, and if in fact this makes what appears to be fortune actually essentially karma, is it not also the case that modifiers which distinguish the abilities of one character as opposed to another based on character statistics or values must be karma adjustments on a fortune system?

I can't imagine that Ron hasn't thought of this, so I look forward to his response. On the other hand, I think that many of us have caused him to re-examine his thinking on GNS/DFK subjects before, and I think he's mistaken on this one.

Ron?

--M. J. Young

[Valamir]

I believe we had a couple of big threads on this topic with Pale Fire regarding what he was calling "randomness" or how random the die roll is.  

I see exactly what you're saying MJ.  In fact, in that thread (I'd link to it if I could find it) I came down on the side that mechanics like the first one in your example (d20+5) feel more random than mechanics like the second one (d20+80) because the ratio of random spread to total number of possible results is much smaller (80% in the first example 25% in the second).

So the larger the modifier is relative to the size of the randomized spread the more consistant the results will be.

However, I would NOT call this karma for a couple of reasons.  One is that it technically isn't.  It might be a fortune system that gives karmic-like results...but it isn't karma.  Secondly it opens a whole can of worms which destroys the ability to use the terms meaningfully.

By the same logic above a sufficiently huge die pool would have to be categorized as karmic because as the pool size gets tremendously large the range of likely outcomes gets very narrow.

So I definitely think this is an important distinguishing phenomenon within fortune mechanics, I certainly wouldn't categorize it karmic.  I would recognize its karmic-esque effects, however, primarily to ensure that that is the effect the designer was going for.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I side with Ralph here on this. While I can see your point in your example, to pursue it is to simply destory and erode any meaningful use of the terms which would just knock everything back to square one.

So Fortune refers to a random factor of some kind. The random factor may be effectively meaningless, but so long as the, say, d4 is added to the stat of 1000, it is still a factor. Classifying it as fortune is merely identifying that the mechanic uses a random factor, not a judgement of how much bearing the random number has on the result.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi M.J.,

Yeah, I've thought a lot about this, and Ralph and Jack have pretty much stated my point of view.

We have:

FORTUNE
a) with quite unpredictable results (e.g. Ninja Burger)

b) with rather trend-type results, occasional reversals (e.g. Sorcerer, D&D damage rolls at ~6th level, Champions/GURPS at median skill levels)

c) with extremely predictable results (e.g. Champions/GURPS when skills get to 14 or higher, D&D damage rolls at high levels)

These are distinct things. I definitely agree with you that calling (c) "just Fortune" is overlooking important aspects of play. When discussing Fortune, we have to be clear about the probabilities involved and their impact on play.

KARMA
a) fixed, fixed, fixed. You have a "9" in sword-fighting, and that's that.

b) adjustable through Drama: Amber.

c) adjustable through Resource spending: Nobilis.

Does Karma (a) look a bit like Fortune (c), during play? It can. Does it surprise anyone that I think both of these are the least useful and fun in terms of actual role-playing.

I think that they are not the same things, mechanically / fundamentally, but they both tip play into the same Awful Pit. I think, M.J., that you're focusing on the Pit rather than on the processes, and Drama / Karma / Fortune, as terminology, is specifically about processes.

Best,
Ron

[GreatWolf]

As an example of "predictable" Fortune (somewhere between options (b) and (c)), I'd like to offer my Alyria game.  Way back when I had been toying with making the game diceless.  When Scarlet Jester approached me with the Diverse Lunacy system concepts, one of my design parameters was that I wanted low randomness without actually discarding the Fortune aspect.  That led us to the system that we currently have.  I don't remember the numbers off the top of my head, but I seem to recall that a character that has only one phase higher than his opponent has an approximately 88% chance of pulling off at least a marginal victory.  And that is the way that I wanted it.  There is still the chance of the underdog rolling a Full Moon and pulling off an incredible win, though, so randomness is not discarded altogether.

This is still a Fortune system but it is a far cry from a game like Ninja Burger, which is all about amusing failure, IMHO, and therefore has a highly random system.

Seth Ben-Ezra
Great Wolf

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I definitely agree with you that calling (c) "just Fortune" is overlooking important aspects of play. When discussing Fortune, we have to be clear about the probabilities involved and their impact on play.

True, but this is only useful when discussing specific games rather than theory in general.

[M. J. Young]

I see what you're saying, and I seem to be vastly outgunned on this topic (some very impressive posters have sided with Ron, and thus far none with me); but I'm going to stick to my guns for a moment.

I am not certain whether this is so, but let me assume that in D&D3E they've abandoned the automatic miss for rolling 1 rule; with all the D20 variants out there, someone has probably trashed it. 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.

I maintain that this system is always part fortune and part karma. As the character gains in bonuses, his ability subsumes more and more tasks as "automatic", in that he will succeed if he tries. Similarly, there will be tasks which the unbonused character cannot do (any task of difficulty 21 or greater) so from the beginning he is prevented by karma from succeeding. The fortune aspect of this particular mechanic only applies to those tasks which lie within 19 points of his bonuses plus one. By karma, he will always succeed at any task of a difficulty equal or less than his bonuses plus one, and never at any task of difficulty greater than his bonuses plus twenty. This mechanic, at least, must be seen in this sense, at least, to shift between fortune and karma, depending on whether the die roll is relevant to the chance of success.

If that is so, then it strikes me that in a fortune system, any adjustment which is based on distinctions of the character's abilities or resources is a karma modifier on a fortune system. As karma overwhelms fortune, it may become a fortune modifier to a karma system.

I don't see the problem of having such mixed mechanics; in fact, I think the use of the terms in this situation clarifies rather than obfuscates both their meanings and the natures of mechanics. Craps is a fortune game; football is karma. Most roleplaying games combine aspects into their mechanics, and I think it helps elucidate the nature of the mechanics to be able to speak of a karma adjustment in a fortune mechanic, or,

KARMA....adjustable through Drama: Amber.

I will accept that this may be a slip of the pen which does not mean, as it appears, a karma mechanic with a drama modifier. If that is what it means, I rest my case. But please explain.

--M. J. Young

[Seth L. Blumberg]

Ron pretty accurately describes Amber as having a Karma system modifed by a separate Drama system. (Actually, depending on Social Contract issues, this can become a Drama system with minor input from a vestigial Karma system.)

D&D3E does not have a Fortune system modified by a separate Karma system.  It has a Fortune system whose statistical properties mean that outcomes become extremely predictable under certain circumstances.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi M.J.,

I don't get your point about Amber.

Resolution in Amber is handled by comparing numeric values of some fairly generalized attributes, scored by the ranks produced by the bidding system during character creation.

If two characters are engaged in a psychic duel, perhaps through the semi-telepathic medium of Trumps, the group looks at their Psyche values based on bid points: say one person, Oswald, bid 33 points on Psyche, and the other guy, Harvey, bid 10 (if a player-character) or was assigned 10 (if an NPC). Let's say they are very close in rank because no other character in the game has the equivalent of 11-32 points in Psyche.

Oswald wins.

Now, 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.

The rules about this, unfortunately, are often deliberately misread to lead people to think that Drama overrides the Karma ranking, leading to quite a bit of he-said she-said in playing Amber. This would represent simply jettisoning the Karma system in favor of a fully-Drama one. As written, however, the system component for basic resolution is Karma, and the modifying (not over-riding) system component is Drama. I don't see how that "rests any case" for you, M.J.

I think that you may be reading too much fixed-outcome into the definition of Karma. In fact, I'm pretty sure that you are taking an outcome-based approach to all three terms, which is the source of the disagreement.

Best,
Ron

[Andrew Martin]

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.

Just because the outcome is obvious doesn't mean that the system has turned into a karma system. The player still has to roll according to the rules (unless the GM is using the "no rules" or "change the rules" golden rule). And, D&D D20 has critical results for a roll of 20 (and 18 or 19 for high skill, IIRC) on the D20, which the player can still hope for to get the task over with in a lesser amount of time. And besides, the GM can always state, if you don't roll the dice, your character fails the action, as the character obviously can't be bothered to actually do the action! :)

Edit:
What Seth wrote. (Cross-posted!)

[Seth L. Blumberg]

I don't think I've ever seen a triple cross-post before.  I've certainly never been part of one before.

[Le Joueur]

Okay, I think you guys have been arguing past each other long enough.  It all seems to start with Mark's quote of Ron:

These are clean, distinct categories, and although a system might combine them, a specific mechanic does not (i.e. it's one of the three).

As far as I can tell, Mark's sees this as saying the 'roll two ten-sided dice' part is Fortune and 'add your skill level' as Karma (or 'take as many dice as your Agility' is Karma and 'roll them and count successes' as Fortune or et cetera).  This is what I believe (not alone now?).

Ralph apparently read Mark's commentary as saying that a resolution was a mixture of the two, leaning one way or the other, depending upon the impact of each 'ingredient.'  'Roll two ten-sided dice and add your skill level' is 'more Fortune' when the skill level numbers are small, 'more Karma' when the skill level numbers are high.  I also agree with Ralph that this doesn't make a resolution 'Karmic,' but then I think his 'sample' is too big (more than a "specific mechanic" per Ron's quote).

Jack further confuses the situation by suggesting Ralph's interpretation (in place of Mark's) would blur the definitions of Drama, Fortune, and Karma; I agree with this too, but again Ralph is talking about collections of mechanics.  So all this means is that a collection of mechanics can be easily a mixture.  Jack goes on to clarify things quite nicely; "Fortune refers to a random factor of some kind."  Like I said, a single mechanic such as 'roll two ten-sided dice."

Then Ron reinforces both sides of the discussion; "I definitely agree with you that calling (c) 'just Fortune' is overlooking important aspects of play," says that a whole resolution is not just one mechanic.  But then he appears to reinforce the converse when saying that a 'mostly Karma' system is not the same as a 'wholly Karma' system (apparently addressing Ralph's commentary).

Mark comes back feeling very much like he's been refuted, but he echoes Ron's comment about "important aspects of play" and the earlier "specific mechanic" stuff.  However, he gets a bit backed into a corner trying to defend the opposite of Ralph's contention, which I don't think was his original point.  He most succinctly gets to the difference (apparently by accident) with, "this system is always part fortune and part karma."  The important word here is system; I think Ron is pretty clear that a system isn't usually all Karma or all Fortune or all Drama.

Ron is clearly confused (probably thinking that Mark is defending the converse of Ralph's contention) when he doesn't comprehend Mark's reference to Amber as 'Karma adjustable through Drama.'  I think both parties are saying that the resolutions, the confrontations, in Amber are created through Drama and then Karma resolves them.  Is your Psyche too low?  Don't get into a psychic duel!  Avoidance is the Drama.

Andrew argues that a system isn't more Karmic just because the modifiers tilt it far one way.  The problem is Mark isn't saying that the system is Karmic, just the modifiers.

Basically, what I see Mark saying is that you have a Fortune system (like rolling dice versus a target number) and then you also have a separate mechanic of modifiers (bonuses from magic items, tools, attributes, skills and so on) that are Karmic in nature.  These are separate mechanics in the same system; the thread title is a misnomer, he's talking about 'Blended Systems' (the plural of mechanic can be system).  I strongly support this idea and have for some time and I think Ron does too (saying, "although a system might combine them").  The confusion seems to stem from Ralph taking Mark as saying that this talks about whole systems being Fortune or Karma only.

Now, have I got all that right?  Can we avoid a protracted series of posting past each other?

Fang Langford

[Valamir]

Actually Fang, I think you'd best go back and read MJs first post again.  It seems to me that you've got things a might confused.  MJs position was that the modifiers were a karmic dilution of a fortune mechanic in the same system.  Seperating them like you suggest and treating them as seperate mechanics is exactly what Jack and I say SHOULDN'T be done.  

In short...no this is a valid disagreement...not talking past each other at all.

[Le Joueur]

Good point Ralph, but that just means that  Mark was suggesting, indirectly, that a system should not be whole-categorized by Fortune, Drama, or Karma.

Let me elaborate.

I disagree with you. As I have more-or-less interpreted the terms from Everway, they go like this:

1) Fortune = use of a randomizing mechanic of any distribution at all. 50/50, 100:1, whatever.

2) Karma = reference to a fixed value.

3) Drama = just sayin', without reference to quantitative values.

These are clean, distinct categories, and although a system might combine them, a specific mechanic does not (i.e. it's one of the three).

Thus 'roll dice' ("use of a randomizing mechanic of any distribution at all") and 'add a modifier' ("reference to a fixed value") 'as appropriate' ("just sayin', without reference to quantitative values") is three mechanics in one resolution system.

Mechanics for aiming are separate from the dice part of resolution.  Mechanics for 'talent' based on an attribute are separate from resolution.  Both of those reference "fixed values" and are thus Karma mechanics.

Mechanics for 'shooting in the dark' are situational and not a part of the success/failure part of a dice mechanic.  Mechanics for striking from behind are separate from the resolution mechanic.  Both are a result of "just sayin'" it's dark or you're behind the target and are thus Drama mechanics.

If you can't pull apart the various component mechanics of a system like this and use terminology like Drama, Fortune, and Karma to describe them, if you can only use these terms to describe 'the whole hog,' I would say their pretty pointless terms.

Almost as pointless as saying that a Narrativist only makes Narrativist decisions and no other.  No, I argue that the way you seem to be saying the terms should be used is of little value, much like saying a game is made up of only one priority and that it never uses any other.

But since you can say 'this instance of game was Narrativist, but that one was Gamist' and still be talking about the same game, I think it is just as valid to say that a system can be based on a Fortune element which is modified by different types of Karmic and Dramatic elements and then talk about, when push comes to shove, which 'carries most of the weight.'  To use these terms as generally as you imply reduces their significance to very small indeed.

Sure Karmic mechanics dilute the Fortunate impact of a system, but I think that Mark makes a good argument against an 'all Fortune' system.

I really think we need to wait and hear what Mark and Ron say before we go on describing what we think they're saying.  I post this only because I want to be clear about what I am saying.

Fang Langford

[Andrew Martin]

I could create absurd examples in which the modifiers swallow the die roll; at some point it seems to me that you would have to conclude the die roll was entirely inconsequential, and the system had become in essence a karma system (perhaps the example above is sufficient?). But if it is possible for the modifiers to so overwhelm the dice that they no longer matter to the outcome, and if in fact this makes what appears to be fortune actually essentially karma, is it not also the case that modifiers which distinguish the abilities of one character as opposed to another based on character statistics or values must be karma adjustments on a fortune system?

To me, this part about modifiers overwhelming the "randomness" of the dice is an example of a broken mechanic. It's "fixed" in the D20 rules by have a roll of "1" being a fumble and a roll of "20" being a critical. The mechanic is "patched" with the critical fumble and critical success rules to handle modifiers (penalties or bonuses) which are in excess of the "randomness" of the D20. (Which, of course, leads to further problems involving large numbers of combatants.)

If one removes the Critical Fumble and Critical Success rules, then of course, the mechanic gives an effect which ranges from Fortune through to Karma with increasing modifier values, even though the mechanic (descriptor + modifiers + D20) is definitely Fortune all the time.