Yes, I'm aware that most (all) resolution mechanics in games are some combination of Drama, Fortune and Karma as they're defined here on the Forge. What I'm looking for are some examples of resolution mechanics where Drama is the primary means of resolution, rather than just the support for something that's either Karma or Fortune (or both). Preferably "hard" mechanics, something at the rule level rather than the System level.

Right now Drama feels like the redheaded stepchild of the trilogy in my eyes. I can't imagine a Drama-primary resolution system that DOESN'T feel like a fancy way of waving one's hands (see: Amber for a big example, at least in how the fans describe it - and even there it looks more like a subjective Karma system) but from what I hear, there's this game called 'primeval' that has one (can't find the rules). I've done searches, without much success (except the game name primeval) but perhaps I just don't know the right combination of terms to search from.

I'm thinking, and hoping, that this is a limitation in my current horizons of thought rather than in Drama as a concept, and am hoping that there's someone(s) out there who can give more concrete examples of what a drama-primary game mechanic could look like without giving the 'waving ones hands' feel. Either examples from extant games, or maybe theoretical sketches.

Or, alternatively, is the existence of a 'hard' drama mechanic (or any drama-primary resolution mechanic) simply theoretical at this point, like the 'top' quark was for so many decades in quantum mechanics?

Tree's Heart Dynasty has a very clear Drama mechanic, with a Fortune component.

To summarize:
* The PC has a stat called Pain, which ranges from 0 to 20.
* Any time the PC is opposed in some substantial way, the GM secretly chooses a number between 0 and 3.
* The GM should roll 4d6, and if the total is less than the PC's Pain, he adds one to the number he secretly chose (this doesn't bump the number past 3).
* The GM's number is the amount of times that the opposition will hinder the PC's progress if he tries significantly to do whatever he was trying.
* The first two times the opposition obstructs, the PC may choose to persist. If he does so, he is committing himself to the contest; he cannot persist and then walk away without succeeding or something bad happening.
* If the opposition's number is 3, that means that it will choose mutual extremity - something very bad happening to both parties - over the PC's success. Mutual extremity will often incur Pain points for the PC; usually 1, 2 in very rare cases.

Whenever a game uses plot point type mechanics ("hero points" in HeroQuest for example), that's Drama.

Theatrix is a system that uses drama quite a bit. Here's a thread from some time ago where Paul Czege discussed the shortcomings of using this type of Drama for conflict resolution: Drama like cold feet underneath my covers
From a post in this thread:

Ron wrote: I may be over-stating the situation for Theatrix, but I know I am NOT over-stating it for The Window, which I think suffers very badly from this problem. In general, it strikes me that Drama mechanics for players and GM alike benefit from both Resource mechanics and specific statement-practices. Puppetland is the best example I can think of, with its strict rules for exactly how actions are articulated. Pantheon, which I think has very different goals/priorities from Puppetland, also organizes its Drama mechanics using beads and turn-priorities.

Lxndr wrote: Right now Drama feels like the redheaded stepchild of the trilogy in my eyes. I can't imagine a Drama-primary resolution system that DOESN'T feel like a fancy way of waving one's hands ...

Primeval is hard to find info on because it was never published, and only playtested by a few people, myself included. It was the brainchild of Tom Back, and it was definitely interesting. Essentially, the rules were that when there was a conflict, and I mean a conflict in the truely grandiose sense of the term (only like three per game), each player took turns describing how his hero overcame the conflict. Then the GM judged the results following several criteria. For example, one of them was called, IIRC, honor, which meant that the description had to make the other PCs look good too - just not as good as the hero that the player represented.

A neat mechanic was that each "class," basically an archetype, had it's own speical mechanic that dealt with how they were incentivized to narrate. The most memorable example, was the "Hyborian" (or was it "Hyperborean"?) character type, instead of honoring the other PCs and the task at hand, had to denigrate everything, and make it all seem like it was of no consequence to a hero as great as his.

This leads to a story that I repeat a lot, forgive me if you've read it: in the game I played, the Hyborian player, upon his hero discovering that the foe we were up against in the final conflict was a giant scorpion machine driven by people from some strange land, commented that he was so thoroughly dissapointed that it was his fate to have to build his legend having only "mortals" to fight, that he took his sword, cut off is own arm, and then used his severed arm as his only weapon to defeat his foes. This being the only way he felt that he could bring himself down to the level of the challenge in question. He got maximum points for the honor category.

An inspiring moment, to be sure. But I think that mechanics like this are potentially "dangerous" because they can cause things to go beyond fun to just odd. That is, they have to be crafted carefully in order that they don't end up creating parodies of themselves.

A reverse of this method (and more "normal") would be to have the GM be forced to take certain player actions as parameters that he'd have to consider in his narration for resolution. This happens in many games now on small scales. If a character uses a sword, obviously the GM won't say he hit his opponent with a wet noodle. But what if a player who used his father's sword always won, but triggered a death amongst the PCs. I mean, there's a lot of ground that could be covered here.

Mike

Hmmm, could someone point me at threads or essays that explain what the exact difference between Drama and Karma is, in the way it's usually used here, as opposed to the Everway sense, where I first encountered it? Yeah, I'm asking to be spammed with links, but I think it's relevant to this discussion. I'm getting no love from the search engine.

It's meant to be precisely the same as the Everway essay definitions.

Fortune - random elements resolve events
Karma - comparison of elements resolves events
Drama - participant feelings about dramatic appropriateness resolves events

See the new Glossary for more definitions: http://indie-rpgs.com/_articles/glossary.html

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: *snip*

Drama - participant feelings about dramatic appropriateness resolves events

See the new Glossary for more definitions: ...

Drama

Resolving imaginary events based on stated outcomes without reference to numerical values or (in some cases) statements that have been previously established (e.g. written on a character sheet). See also DFK and Resolution.

Hiya,

By "hard" Drama, I think Alexander's talking about what I like to call "structured" Drama - it still follows rules about how things are brought into play beyond "I just say."

In Puppetland, it has a lot to do with in-character vs. out-of-character dialogue as well as the tenses used. These are highly constrained, in different ways for players and GM, and the net effect is quite functional. In Pantheon, it has a lot to do with resource allocation - how much you can put into play and how that gets negotiated or cancelled, based on spending tokens. Universalis uses a less competitive version of the same idea for a lot of its content, although not for conflict resolution.

My proto-game Zero at the Bone is another example that I'd really like to try some time. Although action resolution is fully Drama, its IIEE (who says what when, and which characters do what when) is set through Fortune.

Best,
Ron

I feel that most "hard" drama mechanics come through "endgame" or swan song mechanics of a game system. Rather than rely upon dramatic moments pulling the game through slower moments, I think that most designers are reluctant to leave what they perceive as "important matters" (namely, moving the game to the next clue or moment) to the creativity of a single entity (consumer public). Therefore, I think that most games are only willing to relinquish that control at the end, when, from a game's perspective "it doesn't matter anymore".

I say that last bit because, while it may be important to the participants, the game itself, as a mechanical machine, has run its course and there is little or nothing left for it to process through.

Of course, all of this is focused through the lens of "traditional" RPG design, and largely does not apply to what, in my mind, constitutes a "Good Game", but it is prevalent in many older games, or more heavily marketed games featuring some form of dramatic component.

Dav

sorry, wanted to mention: I don't necessarily disagree with drama seeing a relatively minor role, comparitively speaking to Karma or Fortune. In fact, I tend to enjoy a certain degree of Fortune in standard combative (not combat, necessarily, mind you) resolution. This, of course, is mainly due my need for what I plant in my head as the Stake and the Gamble. I find that drama systems work well to establish set guidelines (such as in Violence Future, where the Endgame mechanic insures a certain degree of climactic endings and a sense of finality. But, I feel that the idea of "live by the sword, die by the sword" or really any poetic justice is an inherent aspect of a Good Story).

Okay, to answer the good points brought up in this thread:

1. Tree's Heart Dynasty seems to me to be Karma-primary, not Drama-primary. After all, the GM chooses a number and then (in typical Karma fashion) compares the PC's actions to that number in a very Karma-oriented fashion (beyond the Pain roll, which is Fortune). The number compared is just "number of times the PC chooses to try" rather than a particular stat. Shreyas (or anyone else who's read the text), am I missing something? Where does the Drama outweigh the Karma (the Fortune is obviously submissive in this picture)?

2. Emily, can you explain more on Hero Points in HQ, and how they're used as a Drama-primary *resolution* mechanic (I've only played the game in a one-shot where Hero Points didn't wind up getting used at all)? I was under the impression that HQ's Hero Points manifested secondary to the Fortune roll, but I'm no expert in that game.

Also, thanks for the quote from that thread that I missed (I'll also check out Pantheon and Puppetland, which were mentioned both in that quote, and by Ron in this thread), along with the link to it (a thread I missed in my search).

3. Mike, thanks for the description of Primeval's resolution. Sounds cool, and no I hadn't heard (or read) the story before.

4. Jack - Ron's pretty much on the target about what I mean by "hard" Drama - I do mean Drama that has some firm underpinning of hard rules beneath it at the game mechanic level (wherever in the Venn diagram that falls) instead of the System/Social Contract Level (simon's post in this thread shows how little underpinning Amber has, as the most common Drama resolution I can think of - it's pretty much "Gm's call" without limit).

5. Ron - thanks first for helping to clarify "hard Drama" as well as your examples. I've paged through ZatB and it looks interesting enough to try out at least once, although the almost ENTIRE lack of numbers (barring the cards) makes me somewhat nervous (a little neurosis on my part, I suspect). We'll see if that crops into actual play.

Anyway, thanks for the elucidation.

I think I'm not getting the distinction between Karma and other game systems. If Karma means basing the outcome only on the character's fixed ability scores, I don't know of any system in existence that does that. Amber is often refered to as a Karma system because fixed ability scores are used to establish the character's initial possition on the success/failiure scale, but actual resolution is determined dramaticaly.

How is this different from a diced game in which the characters have fixed ability scores, which establish their likely possition on the success/failiure scale, but then dice (or whatever) are used to actualy resolve the final outcome? In both cases the characters have fixed scores in their abilities. The only difference is in how situational factors are taken into account. In diced games this is usualy through a combination of modifiers and dice rolls, while in Amber it's through drama, but both types of system take Karma into account to equal degrees so far as I can see. Calling one Karmic and the other not seems very arbitrary.


Simon Hibbs

OK, back to the drawing board. The "problems" the everyone is having here were touched on above. Few, if any resolution systems are completly one or the other DFK. They almost all are part one, and part another. One step is random, and the other a comparison. One step is drama, and another random. Or more involved combinations.

Thus, yes, Amber is Karma that can move to Drama. MLWM endgame uses Karma to determine a category of endgame, but then leaves it to the player to use Drama to decide precisely what happens inside of those parameters. And most games have moments where abilities are compared to random rolls, which wavers between karma and fortune depending on a number of variables.

But just to give the standard examples:

Karma - in Hero System if you have 10 STR, you can lift 100 KG. If the player comes to a 50 KG rock, and his character has 10 STR, and he says, "I try to lift the rock," the GM does a simple comparison and says, "You do." People don't think of this as resolution because it's not random. But then that's the point, isn't it. Resolution systems decide what does, or does not happen in game.

Fortune - OD&D initiative. Roll 1d6, highest goes first. No modifiers. Nothing but fortune. Again, people think that's only part of resolution - what can I say, where does resolution begin, and where does it end?

Drama - the GM decides that it would be cool if Bob's character just happened to arrive just now. Drama is used to resolve what happens in game all of the time, and people just don't think about it. Because, again, this isn't one of those "does he/doesn't he" task resolutions. But it's still a method of determining what happens in game. Note how he could roll if he felt like it, or check the time of day and compare to a timeline...

Hopefully this clarifies soom of the issues?

Mike

Why not do this. The GM/referee writes down 6 words or phrases when a conflict arises. Three of these words or phrases are positives, meaning if a player mentions them in their description of an outcome they get 'points' towards their outcome being the true outcome. These 3 words or phrases should be written in order of most important to least important. Give them numbers like 1, 2, 3. The second list is things that the GM/referee definately does not want to see. They are written in order of worst to mildly undesireable (rank them -3, -2, -1). For each person's descriptions, put a check by anything used and total up the scores. In the event of a tie, GM/referee chooses. Word lists can be very close to the situation at hand like (5 rats, hammer, bow ties for positives) (jigsaw puzzle, mirror, splattering blood for negatives) Or they could be over the entire story as a secondary determiner such as (Nihilism, Cooperation, being John Malkovich). In this way, attempts to move in a particular direction support a general theme.

Just a thought, perhaps not as in depth as others.

JOE--

Hi, Mike. I think your last post is great. It also points to something interesting: we often think of 'the' core resolution system as the one which does the most work in the game (Amber's Karma, D&D's combat-Fortune), but in fact few games resolve everything the same way.

One interesting question about a system is: what do you revert to when resolution is not obvious? I think of widely adopted expedients like the GM's drama-based "it would be cool if that happened now, let's put it in the adventure", or the widely adopted OD&D/AD&D house rule of rolling d20 under the most relevant stat when one needed resolution for a 'skill-based' task attempt that was not covered by the rules.

Speaking of house rules, you wrote:

"Fortune - OD&D initiative. Roll 1d6, highest goes first. No modifiers. Nothing but fortune. Again, people think that's only part of resolution - what can I say, where does resolution begin, and where does it end?"

I actually learned to play OD&D with this rule, but it is not in the books.

Men and Magic (p. 11), as well as the J. Eric Holmes edited 'blue book 'basic'' boxed set, actually have strict Karma-based initiative: start with highest dexterity and count down.

In AD&D, you roll a d6 for both sides, but monsters and high and low dexterities get bonuses/penalties, and certain combinations of rolls produce surprise.

I often find it astonishing to remember the games I played and to go back to D&D rulebooks of various editions. The rules I was playing by only in certain cases mirrored what was in those books at all. Some of this I can blame on 3rd party D&D products and Dragon magazine, but a lot of it is just weird oral lore I picked up from other gamers, going back to who knows what?

Oops, I think I was thinking of BD&D Blue Book, pre AD&D, post OD&D.

But we all get the point. By AD&D, this pure fortune rule had some Karma added in in terms of the dex mods, etc.

Yeah, "core" mechanics are often the "flexible" mechanic that can be applied to "any" situation in theory, while the other mechanics for resolution are sorta seen as "fringe". That is, if you have rules for how long it takes alchemists to create potions given the materials to do so, it's rather pointless if nobody is playing the alchemist. The flexible core rules, however are likely to be applied to everyone, no matter how narrow they actually are. Hence how every D&D character will eventually have to make a roll to hit something at some point in all liklihood.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote:
Drama - the GM decides that it would be cool if Bob's character just happened to arrive just now. Drama is used to resolve what happens in game all of the time, and people just don't think about it. Because, again, this isn't one of those "does he/doesn't he" task resolutions. But it's still a method of determining what happens in game. Note how he could roll if he felt like it, or check the time of day and compare to a timeline...

I've been sitting on all this for a good long time. Haven't had time really articulate or post it.

Drama resolution feels like handwaving mostly because it frequently is just handwaving.

Basically, Fortune and Karma produce results through a contest. The player rolls dice, spends points, modifies the attribute or whatever to generate a measure of strength for the contest. This is compared to an opposing strength. The player wins or loses, simply meaning that the player either achieved his desired result or something else happened. In games where the contest determines who narrates what happened, winning means the player gets to narrate the outcome. Losing means someone else narrates the outcome. The narration itself is a powerful Drama component, but Fortune and/or Karma still play an important role..

Drama produces results through player intent. The player with the credibility or authority to declare what happens at a given point in time says what will happen, and that happens. But players don't really have anything in the way of formal recourse when they don't like what's going on. I suppose lots of things have been tried such as voting for approval and little contests to determine who has authority, but none of it has really solved the problem.

So, let's address the problem directly. The limitation is in DFK, specifically in the relationship between K and D. Fortune tends to exist just fine on its own. We can always intuitively assess a method of resolution using Fortune and end up with useful results. We may not like the results. We may not be satisfied with the results. Yet, the results are usually accepted on their own merits with little fuss. Drama is not fine. Drama needs something. It needs an element of Karma to make it go. Which is to say, Drama needs the benefit of a comparative element.

Here is a sore spot: Karma is usually about character ability. Character has X skill or Y attribute. This produces a modifier or certain chance for success in the resolution system. Yet, this says nothing about player intent or resources that enforce player intent. I have a character with a number of hero points. These allow me to have my way at certain times of my choosing... At least, I hope that's what they do. These hero points are a resource, but they're not about Karma. They're more about Drama. My understanding of the terms, Karma is about character ability. Drama is about player intent.

Follow me into heresy. Drama is not just player statements. If Drama is just player statements, Drama will always be restricted to handwaving. Instead, I say Drama is actually player statements plus resources intended to enforce or facilitate the player's intent. Yet, this does not conform to Tweet's notion of Drama, which is why in my own work, I don't use DFK. I use Chance, Ability, and Intent. These notions are closer to the truth.

Chance is part of any mechanic that uses a randomizer to resolve a situation.
Ability is part of any mechanic that uses character ability to resolve the situation.
Intent is part of any mechanic that promotes or enforces player intent to resolve the situation.

Resolution methods that emphasize Chance with Ability will still mostly produce results through a Contest. That is my observation looking through lots of games. People seem to like the OCntest. As it's been explained to me, the dice act as a buffer between the players. Still, the Contest is subject to considerable distortion, and the implied fairness might just be one of the biggest lies ever told in roleplaying.

Resolution methods that emphasize Ability may eschew the Contest in favor of the Expenditure. See the recent Marvel game for an example of that. I spend X points to get what I want. As player, I choose how many points to spend subject to the number of points available and other limits on spending. I spend points based on how badly I want the thing to happen. Of course, my power is usually limited to how many points I have available and how many points I can spend.

Resolution methods that emphasize Intent are still a problem. It seems to me some other method of enforcement is needed. If we already have the Contest and the Expenditure, I suggest using a Transaction. That is, we all have a resource to use as currency. When I want one thing and you want something else, we make a transaction to determine what happens. I will not bore you with more theory.

Instead, I will refer you to The Cash System to demonstrate my ideas. Yes, I will be publishing the posted material one way or another. Yes, I will accept comments and suggestions. No, I really don't have anything else to add.

Mr Miller> But... how often is dialogue the method of conflict resolution? Yes, there's a lot of situations where it's very he/she, and so on, but a lot of that isn't really the resolving of a conflict, but rather the setting-up of a conflict, and/or the playing out of a conflict often resolved by another means (Fortune, Karma - see Fortune in the Middle for an aspect of this). Unless the choice of dialogue IS the resolution element, I'm not sure your point stands. Yes, a lot of a lot of games include drama-related choices, but when is the drama the primary part of resolution?

Simon> Yes, most (all) games have resolution systems which are a mix of the various types... sometimes two, sometimes all three. But, generally, one holds more sway than the others.

In Sorcerer, there's Karma elements (how many rolled is determined in part by stats) and Drama elements (giving out additional dice 'cause of coolness and stuff) but those are subordinate to the Fortune element (the actual roll of the dice). Thus, I'd consider Sorcerer's resolution system Fortune-primary, and I think I'm right on that call.

In Amber, as I understand it, there's a subjective Karma element (most Karmic games at least attempt to set an objective standard, but in Amber it's all "how much people wanted to bid") that is subservient to the Drama element... the Drama element comprised entirely of "whatever the GM finally decides on." Amber (at least as it's talked of by its fans) is Drama-primary, with a subordinate Karma element. But Amber's Drama rules, such as they are, seem to be entirely "whoever can convince the GM his plans are better."

Thanks for the clarification, Mike. I guess I already knew that, but didn't know I knew. ;-D

Ron already beat me to mentioning Zero At the Bone, which is Drama-based with Fortune to determine ordering.

Also, Mike and Alexander have played at least one game that I think has a major drama component: The way the result of a Lapse in Unsung is handled, by a vote, consensus, and dramatic narration, is "hard" Drama, if you asked me. Arguably the Gift system is pure Drama as well... The narrative element of a Gift is added to the game assuming the players connected to it don't veto, there's no Fortune involved except in whether a Lapse happens, and Karma doesn't even come into it.

In fact, if voting and consensus is Drama, then Pretender has a large Drama component, particularly during the "set-up" phase.

In fact, if determining narration rights and letting someone narrate is Drama, and I think it is, then Pretender, Otherkind, Torchbearer, OctaNe, Donjon and InSpectres are all primarily Drama-based games, with the Drama moderated by Fortune to a greater or lesser degree.

So that's a lot more red-headed stepchildren for you. An early example of "hard" Drama might be the optional "Cut-Up" resolution system for Over The Edge that appeared in the supplement Weather the Cuckoo Likes. In that mechanic, you drew several random words out of a bag. If you could describe your character's success using those words in a logical way, then you succeeded in the way you described.

Oh golly, bonk-on-head: InSpectres Confessionals. Drama resolution all over the place, which may even act as a constraint on the allowable conflicts/rolls/outcomes in the next scene despite Fortune outcomes as those scenes are played.

Best,
Ron

Mr Miller> But... how often is dialogue the method of conflict resolution?

Here's my explanation of some forms of resolution mechanics, including an example of a drama mechanic. The explanation indicates a pattern that could be further applied to drama resolution mechanics.

Resolution mechanics being, "the rules which determine resolution of events in the imaginative space".

Karma is resolving actions using character statistics — e.g., this character has a 10 Strength, so she can pick up a fifty pound weight with no problem. In pure Karma resolution, there is no random element.

Karma, Resource is when Karma gets spent up.

Fortune- Dice, Cards (Represent a continuum, a degree of success or failure.)

Resource Fortune - When a resource intitiates a fortune

(Fortune) Oracle- Fortune with interpretative results. What events do the oracle resolve? How does the interpretation resolve an event? Perhaps the GM reads the interpretation?

Resource Oracle- When your Karma or your Karma Resource effects your oracle fortune. Example, Helsna has an "Insight" of 3. So 3x a day she can cast an oracle to understand/resolve a situation. How does the oracle help with understanding/resolving an event? Perhaps the GM reads the interpretation?

Fate - resolving actions based upon prearranged consensus.

Example: Gelkor has Destiny: Find Lost Artifact of Rog-I-Yaz. On the path to that destiny, he has the following Fates: Lose a close loved one; Exiled from Umperfa; Kill Argua the Defiler. Gelkor is in a battle with Argua. He is losing and desperate. Gelkor declares, "May Rog-I-Yaz have mercy upon me!", invoking the fate of "Kill Argua the Defiler"

Resource-Fate - When a prearranged RESULT is initiated through a resource.

Example: As above, Gelkor invoke's his Fate, "May Rog-I-Yaz have mercy upon me!". Gelkor's player then checks his Devotion resource which is significant enough to invoke the god/fate.

Resource-Fortune-Fate- When a resource intitiates a fortune which initiates a prearranged RESULT.

Example: As above, Gelkor declares, "May Rog-I-Yaz have mercy upon me!". Gelkor's player then checks his Devotion resource which is significant enough to invoke the god. However, the fate has not been sealed, it is now the god's discretion. The GM decides Rog-I-Yaz' response based on fortune - perhaps adding the characters "War Reputation" to the die. Rog-I-Yaz is the god of mercyless war and decides Gelkor is too weak and needs to "Lose a Close Loved One" (invoking the fate) to harden up. (Depending on the degree of failure within the fortune resolution and the system, the god could give the character a positive or negative fate in return.)

Drama Resolution

Resource-Drama-Fate- When a resource intitiates a drama resolution which initiates a prearranged RESULT.

Example: As above, Gelkor declares, "May Rog-I-Yaz have mercy upon me!". Gelkor's player then checks his Devotion resource which is significant enough to invoke the god. However, the fate has not been sealed, it is now the god's discretion. The GM decides Rog-I-Yaz' response based on drama. Gelkor dialogues with Rog-I-Yaz, the god of mercyless war. Gelkor grovels, "Rog-I-Yaz have mercy upon me!", an unwise tactic. Rog-I-Yaz decides Gelkor is too weak and needs to "Lose a Close Loved One" (invoking the fate) to harden up. (Depending on the degree of failure within the fortune resolution and the specifics of the fate resolution mechanism, the god could give the character a positive or negative "fate" <to be used later> in return.)

A long time ago I argued that drama was the foundation of all mechanics. You might say that the primary mechanic in D&D is fortune, because whenever you don't know what would happen you roll the dice. The problem is that whenever you don't know what would happen is a drama decision: drama-resolution determines when fortune is required and when it isn't.

Of course, that's splitting hairs, to a significant degree--although it is in keeping with Erick Wujcik's article on diceless games in the articles section--the argument there is that someone decides when to use the dice, and therefore you're using a means of resolution other than dice in order to decide to use the dice. Mike has covered that already, but it helps to recognize that drama resolution is constantly being used unnoticed.

I disagree with Hunter that "intent" is clearer in this regard. Although the names karma and drama aren't particularly good, they work and they are known.

There was an original question asking for examples of drama resolution; it was initially taken to mean published games in which drama resolution is primary. Since then there has been some divergence from this, so I'm going to follow the divergence.

Somewhere I suggested a drama system that was not hand-waving and one-person decision making. As far back as the Gaming Outpost discussions about System Does Matter it was understood that drama didn't necessarily mean "one person decides"; it meant "someone decides" in a more general sense. Thus "someone" can easily mean everyone in the group agrees to the outcome.

The proposed system worked like this: whenever there was a conflict, two players at the table representing the two sides of the conflict each stated the outcome they proposed. Everyone else at the table voted for one outcome or the other, and the majority determined what happened as between those two choices. One of the two sides would frequently be the referee, but not always so; in any event, since the outcomes are being judged by the vote of everyone else, there is some benefit in proposing a moderate result (more likely to win support of the others) and in creating outcomes that benefit or involve in positive ways the other characters (for much the same reason). This would be a drama resolution system that could be run fairly quickly (particularly if every player was given a black chip and a white chip so voting could go swiftly).

Someone said that something like it was implemented somewhere, but I don't recall where.

--M. J. Young

xiombarg wrote:
In fact, if voting and consensus is Drama, then Pretender has a large Drama component, particularly during the "set-up" phase.

Ben Lehman wrote:

xiombarg wrote:
In fact, if voting and consensus is Drama, then Pretender has a large Drama component, particularly during the "set-up" phase.

BL> I disagree, strongly, that voting and consensus represent Drama resolution, namely because they are reduceable to simple player-level karma interactions (each player gets one vote, say...)

yrs--
--Ben

I know I keep comign back to Amber, and commenting with reference to it, but it's the only explicit, formal drama resolution game I've played and I have played it quite a lot.

Lxndr wrote: In Amber, as I understand it, there's a subjective Karma element (most Karmic games at least attempt to set an objective standard, but in Amber it's all "how much people wanted to bid") that is subservient to the Drama element... the Drama element comprised entirely of "whatever the GM finally decides on." Amber (at least as it's talked of by its fans) is Drama-primary, with a subordinate Karma element.

But Amber's Drama rules, such as they are, seem to be entirely "whoever can convince the GM his plans are better."

Yeah, I gotta agree with Pete on this one. A vote isn't a stat -- you're not comparing it to other votes, it's just a way of deciding "who narrates," in a way. If you prefer, it's Drama influenced by Karma.

I mean, if voting is pure Karma, Pete is right: GM fiat is just really boring Karma (I have one vote, you have zero votes) and Drama does not exist.

What about Success? Does the fact that there are stones involved mean it's not Drama?

Lxndr wrote: Mr Miller> But... how often is dialogue the method of conflict resolution?