Okay, so I'm slow to pick up new things. I know it. But I keep banging my head into the topic until it finally sinks in. Right now, I'm still stuck thinking about the categories of resolution mechanics.

Here's my problem. I love having the language and framework of Drama, Fortune, and Karma as stated by Jonathan Tweet and clarified/modified/refined by Ron Edwards. But I don't think they are enough.

I discussed this at Dreamation 2005 with Vincent Baker, and the upshot of that discussion was that there is no real difference between the resolution mechanics. I went off and thought about it, then forgot about it, then remembered it (probably misremembered it), and went "no way!"

Now, Vincent, if I've completely misinterpreted what we discussed that day, please say so. But it seemed that what you were saying is that Drama, Fortune, Karma, Skill, whatever all amount to the same thing. I certainly agree in the sense that they are all methods for agreement. But that still doesn't give us useful categories of those means, which is what I'm interested in. It's one thing to say cars, trains, boats, planes, bicycles, etc. are all methods of transportation. Obviously, they are. But that doesn't help me when I want to know which category a bobsled falls under.

So, here's my question. Are there other resolution mechanics than just Drama, Fortune, Karma? My thought is yes. Just looking at boffer LARPs makes that pretty clear to me. My next question is related: Assuming there are other categories of resolution mechanics, what are they?

Currently, we have:
Drama: Statement as a mechanic ("You jump over the pit.")
Fortune: Randomizing factor as a mechanic ("You rolled a ten, you jump over the pit.")
Karma: Comparative scores as a mechanic ("You have Jumping 10 and the pit is a challenge of 8, you jump over the pit.")

Hmm, the LARP boffer example would suggest another type of resolution, however, if we take that as a Skill resolution, then does the fact that player skill factors into many game systems (especially wargamey combat systems) mean that they are Skill resolution, not Drama, Fortune, or Karma?

That suggests to me that the use of boffer combat in a LARP is probably Drama, Fortune, or Karma depending on how the results of actually landing a blow are determined, I would guess they are most often Karma.

Frank

What I tried to say at Dreamation was:

RPGs' rules coordinate three things. 1) The imaginary events and stuff we're talking about. 2) Real-world things like die rolls and numbers and words on a character sheet and pennies and shot glasses and boffer swords. 3) Our interactions.

Drama is interesting because Drama rules don't refer to any real-world cues. We don't look at numbers or words or die rolls; Drama rules coordinate just our interactions and the made-up stuff.

Karma and Fortune are interesting because Karma and Fortune rules do refer to real-world cues. We consider numbers, words or die rolls in making our decisions about the made-up stuff, and we consider the made-up stuff in making our decisions about our numbers, words and die rolls.

Karma and Fortune are the same as each other, however, in that they both refer to real-world things, and I don't consider the difference between comparing the numbers on two dice and comparing the numbers on two character sheets (eg) to be an interesting one. I'm far more interested in the decisions we get to make about those numbers.

Skill-based rules, like "whoever can pitch the penny closer to the shot glass, that person's character wins the fight" - they're the same as Karma and Fortune as far as I can tell: they coordinate our decisions about the made-up stuff with some real-world stuff. Are they part of Karma, part of Fortune, or their own thing? Who cares. What sorts of decisions do we get to make about them?

-Vincent

Ahh, right, that's it. Thanks for refreshing my memory, Vincent. Now, let me make sure I understand you. My impression is that you are still categorizing resolution systems, but instead of the DFK breakdown, you feel that a more useful division is between resolution mechanics that reference the real world and those that don't. Further, that breaking them down beyond that distinction is meaningless, or at least significantly less valuable than other concerns. Right?

I don't agree with that idea at all, but I want to make sure that's what you are saying before I go on.

Andrew wrote: Further, that breaking them down beyond that distinction is meaningless, or at least significantly less valuable than other concerns. Right?

Asking ourselves whether it's Karma, Fortune or what is pointless,

Okay, what? I mean, I can look at the box in front of me and say, "Well, asking myself whether this is a computer or toaster is pointless, I should just ask myself instead what it does and how it works." Then I can take it apart, realize it has no ability to convert bread into toast, and instead performs a series of simple mathematical calculations at an astounding speed, which allows manipulation of data in a useful fashion for a variety of activities, including word processing, graphic design, communication, etc. Or, instead, I can just categorize it as a computer so I don't have to explain all that (and much more, really!) every time I want to reference it.

That's the core of what I'm talking about here -- creating useful terminology. The method by which we break down and classify the resolution mechanics is a separate, but important, issue. And perhaps that should be addressed first -- figure out what the meaningful divisions are, then classify and codify them.

From my point of view, Drama, Fortune, and Karma (and any others that are similar, but cover other possibilities) are more useful, simply because they are intuitive and easy to grasp, and thus have more practical value to me as I work on game design. I'm certainly open to other possibilities, though. But I'd rather have a workable but imperfect system than a logically perfect, but unwieldy system.

Are we talking here about rules that already exist and we're analyzing them, or rules that don't exist yet and we're designing them?

edit: On reflection, both, obviously. My answer's the same either way. Give me a minute.

-Vincent

Hi Vincent -

I agree with the way you're carving things up here, that the more important distinction is that between Drama and everything else.

I think saying the other distinctions are meaningless/unimportant is going to lead to pointless fights though. What you want to emphasize, from a rhetorical point of view, is just that there's this way of carving things up at a more general level that actually makes more of a difference for play and design than this other level we get stuck talking about a lot.

I do agree that the difference between Fortune and Karma, and consequently between dice and diceless, is overrated in importance. On the other hand, I think that what we're here calling 'skill' resolution - where you make an imaginary event depend on a real-world contest between players, or real-world knowledge or problem-solving skills - is actually interestingly different from Fortune and Karma even if it falls into the same broad category at the highest level.

Best,

Sean

ffilz wrote: does the fact that player skill factors into many game systems (especially wargamey combat systems) mean that they are Skill resolution, not Drama, Fortune, or Karma?

Consider all the possible real-world things that an RPG's rules might refer to.

Why is random vs. non-random a better way to divvy them up than numerical vs. non-numerical, for instance?

Obviously they can be random numerical, non-random numerical, random non-numerical, or non-random non-numerical. Are rolling a die (random numerical) and pulling a written outcome out of a hat (random non-numerical) really more alike than rolling a die (random numerical) and comparing STR stats (non-random numerical)?

Why is "non-random" good enough, when we have both constant non-randoms and changing non-randoms? Isn't spending a point (changing non-random) as different from comparing STR stats (constant non-random) as rolling a die (random)?

The answer is, it doesn't matter. I say "here are Dogs in the Vineyard's resolution rules." You say "those rules are Fortune rules." Or else you say "those rules are Fortune-Number-Text-Deterministic-Expenditure-Skill rules, plus Fortune-Text-Deterministic-Accretion rules." Either way, I say, "oh."

-Vincent

lumpley wrote: Are rolling a die (random numerical) and pulling a written outcome out of a hat (random non-numerical) really more alike than rolling a die (random numerical) and comparing STR stats (non-random numerical)?

lumpley wrote: Why is random vs. non-random a better way to divvy them up than numerical vs. non-numerical, for instance?

lumpley wrote: Isn't spending a point (changing non-random) as different from comparing STR stats (constant non-random) as rolling a die (random)?

lumply wrote: The answer is, it doesn't matter. I say "here are Dogs in the Vineyard's resolution rules." You say "those rules are Fortune rules." Or else you say "those rules are Fortune-Number-Text-Deterministic-Expenditure-Skill rules, plus Fortune-Text-Deterministic-Accretion rules." Either way, I say, "oh."

Ok...I'll see your "oh", and raise you a "hmmm"

I think the difference between DFK is primarily interesting because of the different effect each has on the social dynamic at the table. If one accepts that the game play experience of a given session is driven as much by social dynamic as anything (which I think we all do here) then I find it interesting to explore how we can engineer different game play experiences by using rules to alter the social dynamic.

I think D F K each effect the social dynamic in different ways.

As a superficial starter consider:

Fortune: provides the opportunity to "appeal to a higher power" (aka Fate). The presence of Fortune mechanics permits an individual to abdicate having to make a decision (yes that succeeds / no it fails) to a third party. That third party being "fate" who is represented at the table by the dice (cards/whatever). Since it is a third party the appeal takes on the weight of an outside arbitrator, and since "fate" isn't a real human being to be argued with or bribed "objectivity" can be claimed. "Make a Test Roll" is a way for a player to wash their hands of the situation and claim they can't be held accountable for the result. For the record, I consider this to be a good thing in most cases (I'm a fan of Fortune mechanics) because it alleviates some of the performance pressures that otherwise might lead to paralysis at the table. When decisions get too hot you can punt...and as any fan of real football knows...having the ability to punt is a good thing.

Karma: I find Karma as implimented to be more akin to Drama resolution than Fortune. While its true that both can involve comparing numbers to see which is higher, in practice Karma is rarely that simple. Usually there is a great deal of interpretation that goes into deciding which numbers to compare and when (See any session of Amber). That interpretation is pretty much identical to Drama interpretation with some added constraints. On the one hand, as Robert Frost would recognize, those constraints can serve as spring boards for creativity and thus actually wind up with "better" narration than Drama alone. Looked at another way, however, the presence of Karma mechanics represents a degree of mistrust of Drama alone. One can't simply let someone say anything they want constrained only by their willingness to abide by the social contract. One has to impose limits on that control and using Karma to guide the direction of narration can thus be seen as being primarily a way to restrict wayward narration.


Drama: is narration ability without mechanical restriction. The only limiting factors are peer pressure, the desire for accolades from fellow players for the job you do, and a variety of ulterior social motives (like getting laid). There is no ability to punt. There is no way to blame "bad things" on anyone but your own desire to see those bad things happen. And there are no Karmic mechanical limits on what bad things (or good for that matter) you can do. Drama resolution requires the greatest amount of mutal trust and respect among participants of any of the three. You can limp along without trust and respect in a fortune game by simply punting everything to the "neutral objective arbitrator". You can't take a single step with out trust and respect in a Drama game.


For me then, the greatest fascination comes from where and when these different elements get mixxed and matched within a single game. Which elements did the game designer leave up to the trust and respect of individuals with Drama mechanics. Which elements did the game designer leave mostly up to the trust and respect of individuals but added some limits to their authority with Karma mechanics. Which elements did the game designer feel he needed to give the players the ability to punt the decision out to a Fortune mechanic. Which elements did the game designer assume right from square one that would nearly ALWAYS need to be punted out to Fortune.

D&D is a perfect example of this in action. The game designer completely trusts the DM to use 100% Drama resolution to determine which monster is behind the door and whether or not it will try to bite you. The DM has almost no ability to pass the buck and must take full blame for placing an encounter the party can't handle. But the designer doesn't trust the DM to determine whether the bite was successful or how much damage it does. Or put another way, the designer doesn't require the DM to take sole responsibility for whether the monster kills the party. The DM can punt to the dice and allow the random rolls to decide.

We then see in AD&D especially the rise of random encounter tables and wandering monsters based on dungeon level...giving the DM the ability to punt those decisions as well. And in 3E we see the rise of Challenge Ratings as a way of bringing Karma limits to the DM's ability to create encounters.


I think there's an awful lot of the game experience at the table that can be customized and engineered based on how, when, and where we decide to use Drama, Fortune, or Karma mechanics in a game. They have far to big of an impact on social dynamic at a game table for me to consider them pointless.

They must be understood within the context of "what they do and how they do it" absolutely. But once that context is known there's a big difference in the experience of play as it happens at the table...the overall game ambiance...between "Roll to Hit" and "Ok, I say you hit him".

Ralph wrote: They must be understood within the context of "what they do and how they do it" absolutely. But once that context is known there's a big difference in the experience of play as it happens at the table...

I'm sorry that this thread came to be about my opinion!

I've clarified what I said to Andrew at Dreamation; I'm all set.

Please go forward with the kinds of rules that DFK does or doesn't fully account for.

-Vincent

I'd agree with Vincent that "mechanics that reference real-world cues" (e.g. Fortune, Karma) are fundamentally different from "mechanics that only reference stuff in our heads" (e.g. Drama), and that further distinctions are secondary -- but still important.

I'm not sure it's quite "random vs. non-random" that's the key second-order distinction, though. It may be "uncertain vs. certain." In other words, if I can look at some set of factors and know before trying what's going to work and what won't, that's very different from not knowing for sure until you try. Now, the reason you can not know for sure until you try can be either "reality is undetermined" -- we'll roll dice, or draw cards, or throw pennies in a jar, and only once that happens will the outcome be known -- or "reality is unknown" -- e.g. all the factors that matter are already written on our character sheets (karma) but I can't see the other guy's, and these hidden factors will only be revealed once I've committed myself.

Whether the uncertainty comes from a card that's yet to be drawn, or a card that's already drawn but face-down, sort of straddles these two categories. If nobody looks at the card, but its position in the deck is unchanging, is that somehow less random than rolling a die? Which leads me to suspect that "certain in advance vs. uncertain" is a much more important distinction than "randomly determined vs. non-randomly determined but unknown."

Yes, this is getting kinda theological.

This is on my mind because we've been wrestling with this a bit in the Schrodinger's War GroupDesign project, where one of our self-imposed challenges was avoiding traditional dice-rolling. My personal take was that for a game about transcendant beings defined by superhuman knowledge, the theological/philosophical distinction actually does matter: Uncertain resolution that involves a random die-roll makes a very different statement about the universe than uncertain resolution that inolves a card or written-down value that's hidden. The former says "some things are random and thus unknowable, too bad" -- which nudges you to get all quantum dynamical/Taoist -- and the latter says "everything is knowable, it's just that you don't know them in this particular case that you really care about, you sorry bastard" -- which kinda twists the knife a little more, I think.

[EDIT: Hey, my 500th Forge post. On a normal forum I'd have a new stupid rank under my annoying graphic, not to mention masive speling erors. Oh well.]

Oh, wait a second. I just remembered some nail-biting Amber throne war experiences, pacing in a room waiting for the GM to finish talking to other people so I would know if I reached the castle in time, and realized you can have "resolution that only references stuff in our heads" (drama) and still have uncertainty of either variety:

Drama + "uncertainty because factors are undetermined": I narrate trying to do something, and the GM (or the group by majority vote, or whatever) decides whether they like it enough to let it happen or not. "Yeah, cool, you leap right over the rabid wallaby and grab the jewel" or "no, actually the ceiling's too low, you hit your head and fall down, stunned and helpless." (E.g. "GM Fiat").

Drama + "uncertainty because factors are unknown": I narrate trying to do something, my opponent narrates trying to do something else, but each of is speaking privately to the GM who then decides the interation. E.g. Player A says "I attack wildly" or "I weaken the north flank to reinforce the center" vs. Player B says "I'll let him attack, parry, and then riposte" or "I hit his north flank" leads to the GM saying "you lunge, but he counters and stabs you" or "your north flank collapses under enemy assault."

Whereas by contrast, if you can narrate whatever you want and know that anything you say happens in the shared imagined space, that's drama but no uncertainty.

So you have a fourfold categorization, maybe:
"Only references stuff in our heads" (drama) + certain in advance
"Only references stuff in our heads" (drama) + uncertain
"References real-world cues" + certain (karma with factors in plain sight)
"References real world cues" + uncertain (fortune OR karma with factors hidden)

[OOPS. Sorry Sydney, crossposted with your comments.]

lumpley wrote: Whether we define categories such that Dogs' rules fall into one, or another, or a third - that doesn't touch the experience of play at the table in any way. Define whatever and however many categories you want, Dogs' rules will do what they do.

lumpley wrote: I'm sorry that this thread came to be about my opinion!

Sydney Freedberg wrote: So you have a fourfold categorization, maybe:
"Only references stuff in our heads" (drama) + certain in advance
"Only references stuff in our heads" (drama) + uncertain
"References real-world cues" + certain (karma with factors in plain sight)
"References real world cues" + uncertain (fortune OR karma with factors hidden)

lumpley wrote: Dogs' rules' dice and how you treat them, the words and numbers on its character sheet and how you treat them, exactly what you're talking about, Ralph - that's what makes the experience of play at the table.

Whether we define categories such that Dogs' rules fall into one, or another, or a third - that doesn't touch the experience of play at the table in any way. Define whatever and however many categories you want, Dogs' rules will do what they do.

No really, my opinions about which categorization schemes are useful and which aren't have gotten more attention than they deserve.

-Vincent

Okay, to keep this conversation moving toward my intended goal, I've created this thread for discussing the DFK model and whether it should be replaced, used the way it is, or changed.

Let's focus discussion on this thread on whether there are categories of resolution mechanics that are not covered by DFK and what they might be. For the purposes of this thread, let's all assume that DFK is completely valid and useful, whether we agree with that or not. Any thoughts?

I am really fascinated by this. I don't think we've had a decent discussion about DFK in a very long time, and I'm sorry so much of it has passed without me today.

I hope to remedy that.

I'm landing between Ralph and Vincent on this, I think, and I'm comfortable there.

As a quick aside, I'm going to call Ralph's attention to the potential use of democratic drama mechanics, in which what happens is determined by some mechanism that permits all participants to vote on the outcome. I believe at this point, although it's been mentioned numerous times, it remains theoretical--no one to my knowledge has designed a game in which disagreements concerning events in the SIS are settled by vote. I mention it because this would retain a fully drama-based resolution system but provide the means to "punt".

Part of the original question is whether there are mechanics that are not drama, fortune, or karma. I'm inclined to think that there are not; but that position is based on rather broadly defining karma.

The breadth of such a definition is based on the assertion that Chess is an entirely karma-based system. There is no fortune (nothing random happens) and no drama (it doesn't really matter what anyone says about what happens). There are only the powers of the pieces and the decisions of the players. Yet we can see that at the start of play the two sides are evenly matched--all chess games should, on that basis, wind up as a draw. Where does the difference arise? It would appear that the victory goes to the one who plays the game better. Thus the ability to use tactics and strategy is decisive in the resolution of a chess game. I would maintain that this is a player skill, and that it is in essence karma resolution: who is the better player?

I can certainly see an argument for dividing the qualities of the player from the qualities of the character; however, I'm inclined to think that at some point that distinction becomes terribly fine--how do you categorize qualities of the character that only exist because of skillful choices by the player? Karma seems to me always at some level to invoke player skill. Thus I think player skill is essentially an ingredient of karma. Even in Amber Diceless, the scores of the characters are only half of the karma resolution system--the other half is the abilities of the players to manipulate the situation such that the scores that matter to the resolution are the ones in which they are strong.

Yet Vincent is absolutely right that knowing what to call a resolution system is not terribly important to knowing how to design one or how to use one. A few years back we had a major and I think unresolved debate concerning whether it was at all possible to design any resolution system that was purely one of these. You could eliminate fortune, and with significant effort you could eliminate karma, but you rarely could eliminate drama and you could not really run pure drama in any way that was interesting.

D&D actually provides a classic example.

Although it has gone through several forms, they share some features that make them hybrid systems. Follow me on this.

In a combat situation, it is immediately evident that fortune is involved. We roll our d20s to hit the monster, and if we roll high enough we get to roll our damage. No one questions whether fortune is involved; we think it is a completely fortune based system.

Yet the number that the fighter has to roll to hit the monster is probably a considerably lower number than the number the magic user has to roll for the same purpose. Further, the fighter at seventh level does not have to roll as high as that same fighter would have had to roll at first level. Similarly, a stronger fighter need not roll as high, and a fighter with a magic sword need not roll as high. These are all karma-based modifiers on the fortune mechanic.

Meanwhile, as Ralph mentioned in passing, the referee is contributing a great deal through drama here. He has in selecting the monster for this encounter essentially decided what the base target number has to be, in that the armor class of the monster is going to impact that. He has decided the circumstances in which the encounter is going to occur, which may advantage or disadvantage the players significantly--more or less so depending on which version of the game, and very importantly on how the referee determines a number of questions, such as how many can fight one opponent at the same time, or how many individual fights can be happening in this particular space. In fact, referees inherently have the power to decide whether rolls are "necessary" at all, and in many circumstances a referee will tell a player not to bother rolling damage (because the blow will be fatal) or not to bother rolling to hit (e.g., helpless opponents are hit automatically, but who decides that this opponent actually is helpless?).

Thus I think a significant part of the point of Vincent's opinion here is that it might not be possible to say, "Oh, this resolution mechanic is clearly fortune," because frankly any decent fortune mechanic is going to have other elements in it. With D&D3E it has been argued that the game engine transitions from a highly volatile fortune mechanic (in which rolls of the dice are the critical factor in combat outcomes) to a highly stable karma mechanic (in which character levels are the real deciding factor and die rolls are incidental). Trying to pigeonhole your mechanic as one of these may be a waste of effort.

Yet it is still quite valuable in considering how to design your game and in running games designed by others that there are these three distinct categories of resolution mechanics. The advantage of course is that it enables us to break out of our expectations--to avoid the silly mistakes like thinking that we've gone diceless because we draw cards to generate random numbers, or confusing resolution based on comparison of character scores with resolution based on what the referee wants to see happen. Understanding the categories is a basic step in understanding game design. It's just that you can't really use those categories as absolutes. It would be like learning that four-color printing uses yellow, cyan, magenta, and black ink, and then thinking that this means all color pictures must a patchwork of those four colors so that "four color printing" can reproduce them properly. It is useful to understand that CYMK color concept, but just because those are the colors from which all pictures are made does not mean that any one of those colors will ever be in any particular picture in its pure form. So, too, with DFK, you should understand them, but you should also understand that they almost never appear in pure form in any context.

I see that Andrew is attempting to split the subject, but as I don't yet understand the split I'm going to post this anyway, as it's all relevant to what's been written here.

--M. J. Young

Wow, lots to respond to here.

M. J. Young wrote: Part of the original question is whether there are mechanics that are not drama, fortune, or karma. I'm inclined to think that there are not; but that position is based on rather broadly defining karma.

M. J. Young wrote: The breadth of such a definition is based on the assertion that Chess is an entirely karma-based system. There is no fortune (nothing random happens) and no drama (it doesn't really matter what anyone says about what happens).

M. J. Young wrote: Thus I think a significant part of the point of Vincent's opinion here is that it might not be possible to say, "Oh, this resolution mechanic is clearly fortune," because frankly any decent fortune mechanic is going to have other elements in it.

M. J. Young wrote: It would be like learning that four-color printing uses yellow, cyan, magenta, and black ink, and then thinking that this means all color pictures must a patchwork of those four colors so that "four color printing" can reproduce them properly. It is useful to understand that CYMK color concept, but just because those are the colors from which all pictures are made does not mean that any one of those colors will ever be in any particular picture in its pure form. So, too, with DFK, you should understand them, but you should also understand that they almost never appear in pure form in any context.

I can see Chess being considered Karmic, but for a different line of reasoning than MJ used.

Chess is Karmic for the same reason that Stratego is Karmic. You compare the value of one piece to the value of the other, the higher value (or lower in original Stratego) wins.

In Chess the value of the moving piece =1, the value of the non moving piece =0. 1>0 therefor the moving piece always wins.

Well, except in en passant. Though if you gave that piece a temporary score of 2, it all fits.

But I thought the point of Karma was that it compared two specific values defined by the game. I mean, we can assume two relative scores about anything, but that doesn't change the fact that it's just something we've tacked on, not a part of the game itself. (Actually, the pieces in chess do have specific, non-changing scores. Pawns are 1, knights and bishops are 3, rooks are worth 5, the queen is worth 9, and the king is infinite. Of course, that's really for determining the value of particular moves, and position can change the actual importance of a particular piece.)

Anyway, we could say that a drama mechanic is Karma, using the reasoning that the speaker who is narrating has a score of 1, and all other players have a score of 0. But it's still an awkward fit, which is how defining chess as Karma seems to me.

Classification is a tricky subject sometimes, but I think we need to look at this conversation in light of what makes the most sense. Almost anything can be fit in any sufficiently broad category, but doing so lessens the value of that category as a useful tool for identification. I'm sure we'll all agree that cars and boats are both vehicles. Could we make a case that horses are too? Sure, but it's more useful to identify horses as animals, instead. They can be used for purposes of transportation, yes, but that doesn't mean they should fall into the "vehicles" category.

Anyway, we could say that a drama mechanic is Karma, using the reasoning that the speaker who is narrating has a score of 1, and all other players have a score of 0. But it's still an awkward fit, which is how defining chess as Karma seems to me.

Damn, Ralph, I really want to agree with you, because you and Mike are my freaking heroes for creating Universalis, but I just can't in this case.

Look at it this way. You can make a case for every resolution mechanic being Karma, if you really want to:

Drama -- Whoever has the highest score has the right to narrate
Fortune -- Whoever has the highest score wins the task/conflict
Skill -- Whovever has the highest score (ability) wins the task

Does that mean everything is just a subset of Karma? I don't think so. Sure, maybe you can argue that's the case. But how is it useful? I could create a category -- Things -- and claim that everything is included in it. Does that help me in any meaningful way? Not at all.

M. J. Young wrote: As a quick aside, I'm going to call Ralph's attention to the potential use of democratic drama mechanics, in which what happens is determined by some mechanism that permits all participants to vote on the outcome. I believe at this point, although it's been mentioned numerous times, it remains theoretical--no one to my knowledge has designed a game in which disagreements concerning events in the SIS are settled by vote.

Andrew Morris wrote: Damn, Ralph, I really want to agree with you, because you and Mike are my freaking heroes for creating Universalis, but I just can't in this case.

Valamir wrote: Ultimately D F and K are just different mechanisms for determining who has the "highest score". Therefor, how and when the mechanism is called upon and why certain mechanisms might be chosen over others is thus more important than the identifying the mechanisms themselves.

M. J., I think it is a very important distinction. I'd contest Ralph's statement ("highest score"), but I'll happily agree with your clarification ("credibility"). Of course, we've just come around full circle and defined resolution system, which doesn't help in terms of classification.

Quite. I called it "Highest Roll" as a parallel to Andrew's immediately prior post. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

M. J. Young wrote: Ultimately D F and K are different mechanisms for determining who has the most credibility in the current situation.

John Kim wrote:
Well, hold on. Let's say that the rules are absolutely clear that Bob is the one who final say on a resolution. There is still the issue of how does Bob decide, right? i.e. Does he roll dice, does he compare the stats, or does he simply say what he wants?

John Kim wrote:

M. J. Young wrote: Ultimately D F and K are different mechanisms for determining who has the most credibility in the current situation.

Well, hold on. Let's say that the rules are absolutely clear that Bob is the one who final say on a resolution. There is still the issue of how does Bob decide, right? i.e. Does he roll dice, does he compare the stats, or does he simply say what he wants?

Valamir wrote:

John Kim wrote: Well, hold on. Let's say that the rules are absolutely clear that Bob is the one who final say on a resolution. There is still the issue of how does Bob decide, right? i.e. Does he roll dice, does he compare the stats, or does he simply say what he wants?

You've got that backwards. The person who has credibility is the person whose words get accepted in the SIS. Not the person who then decides how to decide. If you're still deciding how to decide, then you haven't established credibility yet.

I see your distinction, John, but I think it's missing the point.

In case #1, where everyone agrees that Joe decides, Joe has been given credibility up front, and whatever he says goes. There might be mechanics, but in that case (your Everway example) the mechanics serve as a guide to Joe, not as a resolution system which apportions credibility. An example might be Multiverser's General Effects Rolls. If I'm the referee, a lot falls on me in terms of deciding what happens. If I am not sure what kind of thing happens, I can call for a General Effects Roll, either rolling it myself or asking the player to roll it. All that roll really tells me is whether the events should be (from the player's perspective) favorable or unfavorable; it then lends credibility to whatever I create as being the appropriate favorable or unfavorable result, because I've fit my response to the roll. I could have decided what I wanted to have happen before I rolled, and skipped the roll. I could have decided that good rolls would be thing A and bad rolls thing B, and then rolled. I could have rolled cold, and then crafted something that fit the roll. I had the credibility all along. The GE roll enhances my credibility by giving me an authority for my statement, but it does so by limiting the range of possible statements to those it supports.

In case #2, neither Mary nor Pat have credibility at all. The credibility lies in the group decision. Mary and Pat each propose an outcome. The group then endorses one of those outcomes, making it part of the shared imagined space by the credibility invested in the corporate decision making process. When in this kind of situation the group says, "Yes, let's do that," they haven't actually given one of the players credibility. They have inherently examined the two statements and then stated one as being the credible statement--but it has credibility not because of who originally said it, but because "Yes, let's do that" is the means by which the group states it.

Does that clarify anything?

--M. J. Young

M. J. Young wrote: I see your distinction, John, but I think it's missing the point.

In case #1, where everyone agrees that Joe decides, Joe has been given credibility up front, and whatever he says goes. There might be mechanics, but in that case (your Everway example) the mechanics serve as a guide to Joe, not as a resolution system which apportions credibility.

Then I guess we go back to the original question of this thread. Is DFK a useful and complete tool for categorization of resolution mechanics? If not, what needs to be added to complete it? Is it Skill?

Hey, :)

Sorry to be out of sequence, here, but I'm keeping with Andrew's intents for the threads. :)

Over on the other thread, Grover wrote: 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?

my only concern in saying that 'ability to roleplay' (as described in J's and Grover's posts) is Skill and Drama is that it also means 'knowledge of game world' becomes a hybrid resolution method- Drama/Knowledge

for instance, in a game set in a modern world, i once had a character use his katana to slash a refrigeration line on an indutrial piece of HVAC equipment. combined with the GM mentioned rain, i tossed an incendiary device (a flare maybe, its been a half dozen years) into the spewing refrigerant igniting the escaping oil it contained. the ultimate result is that the flame, refrigerant and moisture created a nerve agent (phozgene gas, i think its called)

my experience as an HVAC mechanic allowed me to provide my character (who had a high mechanical skill) a means of dispatching a group of security guards. very dramamtic, yes, but what i'm saying is that its silly to then say "You resolved the situation with the Knowledge method"

maybe i'm just bucking against reform, but how would that help game design? some people are very knowledgable about things like botany- does that mean a player can use Knowledge to influence resolution on his Alchemy checks by defining where his character looks for ingredients, as in "based on how you described the land, and the fact that you said it's medival europe like in its flora and fauna, i decide to look on the northern side of the trees by the stream for herb X, which is there in the real world, so will inevitably be there in this one"

unless we change the term knowledge to skill, as it is used in roleplaying games typically.....did i just go in a circle? not sure....but i'll chew on it and refine it later if i see anything to this :)

Cheers
Brian- the Ninja that fixed your air conditioning 6 summers ago :)

Andrew Morris wrote: Then I guess we go back to the original question of this thread. Is DFK a useful and complete tool for categorization of resolution mechanics? If not, what needs to be added to complete it? Is it Skill?