Introduction

Back in this thread, I brought up the concept of Skill as a possible candidate to flesh out the Drama, Fortune, and Karma triumvirate used to classify resolution mechanics in games (as a broader application of how they are used in Everway). A lot of interesting discussion about DFK also recently took place in this thread.

Some people were for adopting Skill, others thought it could be a subset of one or another of the original three, and some thought that the DFK system itself wasn't useful as a classification method.

In the interest of staying focused, this thread is most definitely not about whether DFK is a useful classification system. I'll be happy to debate that if you want to start another thread on the topic, but that is not the focus here.

Earlier this week, I set myself a small challenge: create a quick ‘n dirty RPG that uses Drama, Fortune, Karma, and Skill at the same time, which could then be used as a concrete example of theory. Along the way, I also threw in two other potential types of resolution methods: Resource and Vote. I’d like to discuss whether these three types (SRV) are significantly different from anything covered by DFK to warrant their own category.

Oh, and play the game, if you want to, it should be a full system, even though that wasn’t the purpose (which is why this is in theory, not design). I don’t know that I’d recommend it, though, because I just threw things together without any real rhyme or reason, so as to include as many resolution methods as possible.


Sloshed: Booze and Secrets

Basic Idea
You are taking the roles of a bunch of buddies who haven't seen each other in a while, for whatever reason. It could be that you are recalling your separate tours of duty, maybe you went to different colleges, whatever. The point is you are now catching up. Somewhere along the way, you’ve done something you want to keep secret, but which your buddies will likely uncover during the course of the evening.

Necessary Supplies
Each player needs a blank index card or small piece of paper, a writing implement, a standard six-sided die, a shot glass, and 10 pennies.

Character Creation
Take a blank index card or small piece of paper and write down the following information: your character's name and six potential responses to insults. These can repeat, but you must have at least 3 different responses. For example:

David Hanley
1 - Ignores it
2 - Laughs at it
3 - Laughs at it
4 - Insults right back
5 - Gets angry
6 - Gets angry

Now, on the back of the card, write your character's deep, dark secret. It has to be something that he's done since the last time he saw his buddies and it has to be classifiable as one of the seven deadly sins, but other than that, it can be whatever you like. It has to be something which could reasonably have happened. "Anger: I shot a man" is fine. "Anger: I shot a man on another planet" is not.

The seven deadly sins (in case you didn't know them) are:

Pride -- comparing yourself to others and believing you are better than them
Avarice/Greed -- demanding your "fair share" or more
Envy -- resenting others for what they have
Wrath/Anger -- responding aggressively and/or violently without sufficient reason
Lust -- self-destructive drive for pleasure out of proportion to its worth
Gluttony -- refusing to accept the natural limits and balance (not just in food)
Sloth -- laziness, apathy

How to Play
The game proceeds in rounds. Both rounds as in turns, and as in "the next round's on me." Everyone has a shot glass, placed anywhere on the table they want. It's to the player's advantage to have their shot as close to them and as far away from the other players as possible. Each player has 10 pennies (or any other coin, if all the players agree to it). The players roll dice to see who goes first -- highest roll wins. Any ties are re-rolled until there is only one winner, who has the right to Tell a Story first. After the first player has finished his story, the player to his left gains the right to Tell a Story, and so on, until the game has ended.

In Telling a Story, the player must at least highlight or give some hint as to their Secret. “I got so damn mad” or “I coulda killed him for saying that” are both fine hints for “Secret: I shot a man.” There’s no real incentive to cheat on this by giving false or misleading hints. However, should any player feel that another is doing so, a Vote may be called for. If the Vote is decided in favor of the accused, the accuser must give all his remaining pennies to the accused. If the Vote is decided in favor of the accuser, the accused must split his pennies as evenly among the other players, with any excess going to the accuser.

When a player is Telling a Story, the other characters may ask questions or request clarifications, but they cannot themselves contribute to the story, except in three specific situations: if they Insult the storyteller successfully, if the storyteller narrates them into the story, or if they win a Contest to gain narrative control.

Insults come into play when any character insults the character who is Telling a Story. At that point, the storyteller may (if they so choose) Take Offense. Taking Offense requires that both the player doing the insulting and the player being insulted each roll their die, with the highest total winning. Any ties are immediately discarded and rerolled. The winner of the conflict gains the right to narrate the rest of the current Story. The loser must immediately cease narrating (if they are the current storyteller) and forfeit their right to Tell a Story for the rest of the round. Obviously, Insulting the storyteller can backfire. In addition, the loser must roll again and consult their Insult reactions, role-playing out the appropriate one (whichever result matches the number of the second roll).

If the storyteller narrates another character into the story, that player is free to jump in and talk over the storyteller, tell their own version, or outright contradict the storyteller. They certainly don’t have to do this, but they are free to do so, according to the rules. If both players insist on conflicting points about the Story, a Contest is required to determine whose version the group finds most believable (note that this doesn’t mean that it is true, just that it is accepted by the drinking group as what “really” happened). The Contest involves each player attempting to toss pennies into their opponent’s shot glass. Each player takes turns tossing pennies until they miss once or run out of pennies. Their opponent can still continue shooting as long as they have pennies, or until they also miss a shot. Whoever got the most consecutive pennies in the opponent’s glass wins the Contest.

A named character may also choose to initiate a Contest in order to take complete narrative control away from the storyteller. The loser of this Contest immediately looses any right to Tell a Story for the rest of this round.

A contest may also be called by any character (named in the Story or not) to determine the outcome of any physical events or actions taking place in the in-game world (to determine the outcome of a fight, to define the current weather, to describe the bar, etc.).

A character can take a limited form of narrative control by Correcting. This is when one player attempts to change a specific fact about a current story, but doesn’t want to take full narrative control through a Contest (”No, no, Bob…the car was bright green, not blue.” or ”Whadda ya mean, Steve wasn’t there? He told me he was.”). To make this change “real,” the player must bid any number of pennies (up to the number he currently has, of course) and put these down on the table in front of him when he makes his statement. The storyteller may either accept this change (and take the pennies), or give out a greater number of pennies to the other player and shoot down their correction in the course of their Story (”Shut up, you colorblind fool. The car was blue, got it?” or ”Steve’s a damn liar -- he wasn’t there.”)

After the storyteller has finished his story, the player to his left gains the right to Tell a Story (unless he lost the right to do so this round due to an Insult or Contest). This process continues until the original storyteller is up again, at which point a new round begins.

If a player thinks they have determined which of the seven deadly sins relates to a character’s Secret, they may guess, but only if they have more pennies than that character’s player. The player whose Secret is being guessed must answer truthfully. If the guess is correct, the guesser receives half of the other player’s pennies (rounded up). If the guess is wrong, the guesser gives half of his pennies (rounded up) to the other player. This same practice applies when guessing exactly what the secret is, but if correct, the guesser receives all of the other player’s pennies, and if wrong, the guesser must give all of his pennies to the other player.

Any and all questions or disputes about rules should be handled by discussion when possible, but if that fails to provide a decision, a Vote may be called for by any player to determine how to proceed or interpret the rules.

The game ends when all Secrets have been guessed correctly, when a number of rounds equal to the number of players has passed, or when a successful Vote is called to end the game.

Drama, Fortune, Karma, Skill, Resource, and Vote

Drama is present in Telling a Story.
Fortune is present in the Insult rules.
Karma is present when Guessing a Secret.
Skill is present in Contests.
Resource is present in Correcting.
Vote is present in…well…the Vote.


Conclusion
Looking at the examples listed in the section immediately above, here are my suggested definitions of Skill, Resource, and Vote. The current definitions of Drama, Fortune, and Karma do not need to be changed to accommodate Skill, Resource, and Vote.

Skill: Resolution of imaginary events based on the abilities of the player, without reference to unpredictable non-behavioral elements or comparison of Effectiveness values.

Resource: Resolution of imaginary events based on use of units of Effectiveness, without reference to unpredictable non-behavioral elements or comparison of Effectiveness values.

Vote: Resolution of imaginary events based on majority agreement, without reference to unpredictable non-behavioral elements or comparison of Effectiveness values.

The simplified definitions would be:

Drama: Resolution by speaking
Fortune: Resolution by randomness
Karma: Resolution by ranking
Skill: Resolution by doing
Resource: Resolution by spending
Vote: Resolution by majority

Well, that’s what I’ve come up with. Let me know if you agree or not. If not, try and frame your responses in the form of concrete examples (preferably from the sample game). Hopefully, using a consistent set of examples will help me and others illustrate their points more clearly.

That makes sense to me. The obvious example of Skill is boffer fighting in LARPs.

Of course, the lines are sometimes blurry. Is it skill when someone can narrate well or has personal charisma (as a player) and therefore other players agree to what s/he's saying? What about two players disagreeing, and one appealing to authority (e.g., being the GM), is that still just Drama or something else? What do people base their votes on: skill of those arguing different sides, authority/precedent, popularity?

Good questions, Christian. My take on your examples:

As to narrating well or using charisma, it seems to me that it would be either Drama or a Drama/Skill hybrid, depending on the specifics. Specifically, does the quality of your narration or strength of your charisma affect whether your statements are adopted in the SIS? If no, then I'd say just Drama. If yes, then Drama/Skill hybrid.

The appeal to authority in the form of GM statements having more weight seems like pretty straight Drama to me.

The voting examples are a bit trickier. If the participants are basing their vote on the skill of other participants arguing their side before the vote, I'd think that would be a Vote/Skill hybrid. If appealing to authority/precedent, then it seems straight Vote. Basing votes on popularity seems like something that doesn't fit in to this classification, because it lies more on the level of social contract.

Oh, and play the game, if you want to, it should be a full system, even though that wasn’t the purpose (which is why this is in theory, not design). I don’t know that I’d recommend it, though, because I just threw things together without any real rhyme or reason, so as to include as many resolution methods as possible.

I'm absolutely positive that vote is just drama with the credibility spread to the group generally; we've even had that discussion here, in terms of designing a decentralized drama-based system.

I'm rather certain that resource has always been considered a version of karma, in that players win or lose according to how much they have and/or are willing to spend. I'd be willing to entertain arguments either way on that, though, as I'm not sure I can defend the statement (although I haven't played many resource-based systems).

I will admit that skill has potential, and should be considered more fully (yes, it was addressed in a rather lengthy thread). I tend to think of skill as being a subset of karma, based on analogies to non-roleplaying games (in the sense that karma is the best man wins, and the choice of skill versus numbers is merely asking "best in what sense?"), but there are arguably differences worth recognizing.

--M. J. Young

Okay, Vote actually being a form of Drama makes sense. In that light, it really doesn't seem to merit its own classification.

As to Resource being Karma, I could be convinced, but I think there might be value in looking at Resource as a resolution category as well as (or instead of) Resource as a Character Component.

I still believe that Skill is quite clearly deserving of its own category, and should be looked at on its own, rather than being lumped into Drama. As to including Skill within Karma, I don't see how that's possible, since it's pretty much excluded by definition (and I think the definition of Karma in the Provisional Glossary is pretty solid, as opposed to the definition of Drama, which seems overly broad).