Since the discussion on this thread is veering away from what I initially wanted to address, I decided to create this thread for discussing whether the Drama, Fortune, Karma model is valid as is, needs some changes, or should be replaced with something else.

Now, I'm definitely in category two -- I like DFK, but I don't think it covers everything. Others expressed different opinions in the original thread, and I think those opinions are valuable for discussion.

So, let's all talk about DFK and what we think the best option is. I'll go first:

What I Think
DFK is a useful tool that just needs to be enhanced/refined.

Why I Think That
1. DFK is easy to understand and use
2. Identifying naturally occurring trends and classifying them is more valuable than artificially created dichotomies that may create useless/unused categories
3. DFK covers most resolution mechanics
4. Folks are already familiar with DFK

What I Think We Should Do
I think we should include Skill as an equal category to DFK. I further think we should try and figure out if there are any other similar classifications. I don't think we should get into "hybrid" mechanics. From searching through old threads, it's pretty clear that the consensus on that is hybrid mechanics are more common than "pure" mechanics. Simply because one can bleed into or cross over into another category doesn't create the need for a new category.

Okay, that's my piece. Anyone else got something to say on this topic?

I would like to hear your definition of Skill. DF and K already have pretty standardized definitions. Skill, on the other hand, is pretty much just one capitalized letter in your post.

Sure thing, Alexander. I define Skill (with the capital) as a category of resolution mechanic that involves using real-world ability to determine in-game events or outcomes. Let me know if that needs more clarification or examples.

Are you defining skill as including players ability to use the system to better advantage due to greater real world skill at manipulating the mechanics (like Riddle of Steel or Burning Wheel combat)? Or are you defining skill as using actual real world abilities not traditionally thought of as game mechanics?...like say shooting hoops, or playing a game of Hangman as your game's resolution system.

The latter, Ralph. Here's a couple of examples from the other DFK thread.

1) In a hypothetical boffer LARP, the only mechanic is that if you are hit with a weapon, your character is dead. This is way more simple than most boffer LARPs, but it'll do for discussion.

2) In a table-top game, the only mechanic is that whoever can grab the "narration rock" first narrates the outcome for a specific period of time.

Skill resolution seems a bit weighted to whomever chose what the Skill mechanic depends upon.

For boffer weapons, using them for combat makes enough sense, as boffer weapons are meant to give the rush and excitement of real weapons and to use similar techniques. That one person might be better at using boffer weapons is just something to deal with, or look for non-boffer LARP.

Grabbing a "narration rock" for a tabletop seems, though, is an even clearer example of what I'm talking about. It doesn't relate to the game as a boffer weapon does. It's arbitrary, and if one person is better at grabbing a rock and another is better at putting pennies into shotglasses then there's going to rightly be disagreement about which to use. I guess all social interactions could be settled by grabbing a rock, all combat could be settled by penny tossing, and everything else could default to throwing darts. That would at least spread the skills around a bit.

One of the reasons to play RPGs, though, is so that people can build characters with skills they themselves don't have. Play then depends largely on the judicious use of those skills rather than the player having specific skills. The Skill mechanic as you've described it seems to promote a competition at a different level than most RPGs. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's not clear to me how well players would accept it.

Christopher, I don't see the fact that the second rule is unrelated to the in-game action as a bad thing, in and of itself. There could be many reasons why this is beneficial. And, people with more/better talents in real life will almost always have an advantage in any activiity. If I'm playing D&D, I don't complain because other players (who know the system better) have an advantage. I either accept it, or improve my own abilities. My skill at manipulating stats, choosing feats, etc. has no logical relation to my character's in-game abilities, but it affects my in-game effectiveness nonetheless.

I'm just putting out examples here, so folks know what I mean when I say Skill. I'm not putting any value on those examples or claiming that they are good for every or any game.

Christopher, I'm not certain if your response indicates you do not feel the category is a valid category or not? Defining the category of Skill -- and any others not currently listed that might fit into the resolution schema -- is what this thread is about. I'm not a moderator, but I believe other concerns about Skill-based resolution mechanics would be better served in their own thread dedicated to that topic.

For my part, Andrew, what you are saying certainly makes sense as a category, as I do not see it easily being fitted into any of the other resolution methods. Interestingly, this would make certain types of card-based resolution mechanics a mixture of Fortune and Skill (luck of the draw followed by the skill at playing the cards to best effect), which would include all CCGs I am aware of personally.

Hey, :)

greyorm wrote: this would make certain types of card-based resolution mechanics a mixture of Fortune and Skill (luck of the draw followed by the skill at playing the cards to best effect)

I don't know... I just don't see "Skill" as a valid resolution type. It seems that Skill really encompasses all sorts. Can you get them to agree that you should win somehow (Drama)? Can you set up the situation so that you can apply a score you know will beat the difficulty (Karma)? Can you increase the odds in your favor (Fortune)?

So it seems that what you're talking about is not "skill" at all. What you're really talking about is different ways of managing things. Does that make sense?

Thomas

For reasons I mentioned in the parent thread, I think that "Skill" is necessarily an aspect of karma. It's just using the superior ability of the player rather than that of the character to resolve the matter.

Also, as I presented in some detail on the parent thread, I think nearly all mechanics are hybrid--there are probably no pure fortune mechanics, and few if any pure karma or pure drama mechanics in practical use. (A pure drama mechanic would be one in which the person making the decision would not have to consider at all whether the outcome made sense in relation to stated character abilities. It is certainly the case that referee fiat is a drama mechanic, but it is also the case in practice it has to be justified based on karmic considerations.)

--M. J. Young

Yeah, I'm defining Skill as different than skll, here. That might be causing some of the confusion.

Skill = the (potential) category of resolution mechanics that uses real-world actions or event to determine in-game events or outcomes as the central mechanic.

skill = [traditional definition] the ability to use one's knowledge effectively and readily in execution or performance

Now, some examples (examples always help me out):

A game where you receive a random set of cards, then succeed or fail based on how well you use the cards (e.g. poker)
- Fortune and skill, but not Skill. The defining factor is that your options for resolution are determined by chance. The fact that you can do better or worse is just a measure of personal ability, not the core of the resolution mechanic. Traditional skill applies almost anywhere.

A game where you create a deck of cards from a set of available options, then receive a random set of cards from that deck, then succeed or fail based on how well you use the cards (e.g. most CCGs)
- Skill and skill, but not Fortune. The defining factor is how you choose te set up your deck. Luck plays a part in how well you do, but it is not the core of the mechanic.

Boffer LARPs
- Karma, Skill, and skill. The combat systems are usually totally Skill (based on your real-world hitting the target or not) or Skill and Karma (set abilities that let you achieve different things at certain levels). The magic systems are almost always Karma.


So, Thomas, what you are saying makes sense, but I disagree. Yes, skill influences pretty much everything. So does luck, but it doesn't make other resolution mechanics Karma.

I'm not saying the lines aren't a little blurry at some times. Nor am I saying that hybrid systems aren't possible. They both are. In fact, as M. J. points out, most systems are hybrids.

The relevant questions for this thread are:

1) Does DFK cover all possibilities?
2) If not, how should it be modified?
3) Is there a better system than DFK?

Interesting. With some reservations (as I agree with MJ about chess) I venture that there are games that do this, and they do this for the specific purpose of training/developing that skill.

That looks to me like almost but not quite a resolution system; because the system actually serves to get you to perform the act, rather than judge you according to the performance of the act.

Say you had a game where you had to run up, kick a football into a net, and then move a token on a board depending on whether you got the ball in the net or not. Say 1 space if you missed, 3 if you succeeded. The idea then would be that kudos are awarded for succeeding on the board, which requires performance of the skill at the net.

This might be a kind of "exercise" category?

contracycle wrote: That looks to me like almost but not quite a resolution system; because the system actually serves to get you to perform the act, rather than judge you according to the performance of the act.

One of the reasons to play RPGs, though, is so that people can build characters with skills they themselves don't have. Play then depends largely on the judicious use of those skills rather than the player having specific skills. The Skill mechanic as you've described it seems to promote a competition at a different level than most RPGs. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's not clear to me how well players would accept it.

I further think we should try and figure out if there are any other similar classifications.

Emily Care wrote:

I further think we should try and figure out if there are any other similar classifications.

Another possible technique would be guessing. Guessing a pre-written number or word, a secretly rolled die, or a variant of three card monty. Then again, this could either be classed as skill, karma or fortune depending on the specific use.

So it's really just another form of fortune. Arbitrariness standing in for randomization.

Guessing a secret is much like a riddle, so would be skill, if anything.

Cool.

komradebob wrote: So, to go a tiny bit off topic, is the issue here primarily that it is uncommon for TT RPGs to use Skill resolution techniques, rather than a question of whether such a category exists?

Valamir wrote: Are you defining skill as including players ability to use the system to better advantage due to greater real world skill at manipulating the mechanics (like Riddle of Steel or Burning Wheel combat)? Or are you defining skill as using actual real world abilities not traditionally thought of as game mechanics?...like say shooting hoops, or playing a game of Hangman as your game's resolution system.

Rules mechanics are there to arbitrate disagreement. That's what DFK is really about, right? So what is a useful frame for classifying these mechanics?

I would say that the frame that appears most immediately useful is in determining where authority lies: Who gets to make the decision? Who gets to decide who wins? Without this issue there is no need for any resolution mechanics.

Based on this, I think that there are two axes which define the continuum of how authority is distributed in a mechanic:

Axis 1: Authority is independent of content within the SiS or subject to content within the SiS.

Axis 2: Authority is independent of player influence or subject to player influence.

Any mechanic could then be plotted on a two dimensional graph. The four extremes would be:

1. Subject to SiS and independent of player influence = karma
2. Independent of SiS and independent of player influence = fortune
3. Subject to SiS and subject to player influence = drama
4. Independent of the SiS and subject to player influence = skill

This means that "Skill" would take on the role of some aspects of resolution formerly defined in the domain of drama, such as the ability to effectively whine, cajole, plead, and bully other people into letting you have your way. ;-)

Mechanics which are plotted in any of the exact corners of this graph probably do not exist at all. This is because a resolution in actual play is not the same as a resolution in the system. Any given resolution in play is far more than the single mechanic provided by the system for that act of resolution. Rather, it is a culimination of all of the resolutions that have come before it, as well as the social contract defined entirely outside of the system. What this means is that every act of conflict resolution in a game uses different rules based on the history and interaction of rules that have led up to that resolution.

So, to use an earlier example, I roll to-hit in D&D. What is the mechanic being used? Here are some factors involved:

1. Roll of the dice.
2. Your attack bonus.
2.1. Which class you chose.
2.2. Your equipment.
2.2.1. Are you allowed to buy magical equipment from the book, or only use what you find, or only chose from "ye old magic shoppe" that has X list of items available?
2.2.2. Did you take the weapon focus feat?
2.2.2.1. Are you using the weapon specified by the weapon focus feat?
2.2.3. What is your strength score?
2.2.3.1. If you have weapon finesse is your dex bonus higher than your strength bonus and are you using a finesse-able weapon?
2.2.3.2. Did you use rolling or point-buy during character creation?
2.2.3.3. Did you increase your strength and/or dexterity at levels 4, 8, 12, 16, and/or 20?
2.3. Are you flanking?
2.3.1. Did the DM chose a monster immune to flanking?
2.3.2. Did the DM chose an environment where flanking is not possible, such as a narrow corridor?
3. The armor class of the target
3.1. What equipment the target has
3.2. The condition of the target
3.2.1. Is the target flatfooted?
3.2.1.1. Did you spot the target?
3.2.1.1.1. What is your spot score?
3.2.1.1.2. Did the DM decide that your opponent is laying in ambush?
3.2.1.1.2.1. If so, what is your opponent's hide score?
3.2.1.1.2.2. If not, what is your opponent's spot score?
3.2.1.2. Did you win initiative?
3.2.1.2.1. Do you choose improved initiative?
3.2.1.2.2. What is your dex modifier?
4. Are we using house rules?
4.x This effects everything else!

This is only a very small subset of all the factors that go into this single resolution.

The exact configuration of which of these factors are relevant depends on the history of previous conflict resolution. Is it possible for there to be an act of resolution which is independent of all previous acts of resolution? I suspect not.

It is the interplay and conflict of authority within a given moment of resolution that guides the social contract by which it resolved. This means that it has a large impact on whether, for example, a game has a narrative, gamist, or simulationist bent.

I've a quibble about words. Kenjib, what it is that you call

determining where authority lies

Oops! Sorry about that. Here is my mapping from "oops wrong lingo-ese" to forge-speak:

authority = credibility
system = rules

Hopefully it didn't detract from the comprehensibility of my post.

kenjib wrote: Why is being good at playing hangman any different than being good at playing the advanced form of rock-paper-scissors meets chicken that is TROS combat?

Right, as I'm using the term Skill, it would not (as JMendes points out) apply to the ability to use/abuse a system mechanic. I know a guy who can throw dice (six-siders, at least -- I've never seen him do it with anything else) and almost always call the value it'll show before he tosses them. Does this mean a die-roll resolution system is Skill, not Fortune, because ability can alter the results? No, of course not. If a general uses his knowledge of chess to formulate a battle strategy, does that mean he's playing chess? Again, no. Chess remains chess, and battle remains battle. The fact that one may provide insight into the other doesn't change the categorization of each.

The real central question of this thread is whether DFK is still valid, or if something else does the job better. Discussions of Skill as a fourth category would be better suited over in this thread.

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?

That's a good question. But I'd be inclined to say no, because the DFK system is focused on the intent of the mechanics, I think.

Again, though, let's take talk about Skill over to this thread and keep this one focused on the validity of DFK as a useful tool. I really like Skill and want to discuss it more, but the whole point of this thread is to address the broader issue of DFK as a tool for game designers. It's gone off topic a bit, however, so here are some examples of what kind of talk fits in which thread.

This Thread (DFK evangelism/criticism)
DFK is the best way to classify resolution mechanics, for these reasons!
DFK sucks, and this idea is better, for these reasons!

The Other Thread (Working within DFK)
Any discussions about Skill
DFK could use/doesn't need any more categories.
DFK is good, but needs to fixed in this way.
I've got a great idea for a category that covers the other stuff DFK doesn't!

To answer the question "Is DFK still valid?" I think we first must ask "What does DFK do for us?"

I realized that the only answer that I could come up with was "It provides a system of categories for resolution mechanics." It's a classification system based on, what exactly? DFK is valuable because it is a classification system, and I can't think of another one, but that doesn't mean that it's a good classification system. At the moment, I'm thinking that it's not.

Thomas

Thomas, that's more what I was looking for when I started this thread. I'd like to hear more about why you feel DFK isn't a good classification system when you have a chance to comment further.

As to the question you raised ("It's a classification system based on, what exactly?"), I'd say it's based on immediately identifiable core qualities. What I mean by that is we (your average gamers/game designers)look at rolling dice, comparing scores, and resolution by speaking as three distinict categories, distinct because of their quintessential characteristic. All DFK does is lump similar methods together and name them (at least, that's my take).

Others have stated that they have a different viewpoint on what DFK is/does. John Kim says (over here) that Drama and Karma are a split defined by reference to game traits or not, with Fortune being an unrelated category defined by its use of randomizers. Now, that viewpoint is interesting because it makes DFK seem a little shaky to me. It's one thing to define a set of categories based on central characteristics. It's another to define a set of categories based on dichotomies. Either one is useful and valid, but mixing them together seems like a broken system to me.

Well, here's my two cents. DFK is not useful to me because it makes no distinctions between the levels of things. I personally think about resolution mechanics in terms of the relative importance of several factors:

1) Importance of randomizer -- i.e. variation of the roll compared to skill
2) Importance of skill and/or fixed game stats
3) Importance of resource allocation (i.e. perversity points, hero points, etc.)
4) Importance of freeform description

So, for example, DFK does not take into consideration any sort of resource spending (i.e. hero points, perversity points, dice pool allocations, etc.). Any randomness is lumped together in Fortune. Yet I think such resource spending can make a big difference in a game. Actually, it occurs to me that this was a part of my old rgfa diceless FAQ. (cf. rgfa info). From there:

Q: How does the GM make decisions?

That varies with the system, the GM, the group contract, and so forth. In general, action resolution can be based on a great variety of input factors. What follows is an outline of some of the factors which can go into action resolution -

(A) Reality/Genre: This is just the GM's judgement of what is the most reasonable outcome given the understood "reality" of the situation -- including genre and setting-specific laws (like magic). This is actually the most common form of resolution in any game - if a character tries to walk through the woods, the GM just says it happens.

(B) Mechanics: This is game-mechanical constructs (which may represent the genre-reality, but which are more than just a general understanding). Note that this does *not* have to involve dice. CORPS and _Vampire_ both use some diceless, mechanical action resolution. Spending Plot Points (or Hero Points, Willpower, etc.) is also a mechanic.

(C) Description: In this case, _how_ the player describes his character's action has a big effect on the outcome. This involves the player heavily in the action -- but it also tends to emphasize player skill rather than character skill (i.e. if a given player is very good at describing combat tactics, then his character is better at combat).

(D) Plot: As _Theatrix_ describes it, "Does the plot require a given outcome?" The GM sets up a plot beforehand, and if a given result is required for the plot to work, he chooses that result. This is the factor most often associated with "railroading".

(E) Drama: This is a free-wheeling sense of drama or comedy/fun, as mediated by the GM. For example, a chandelier swing in a swashbuckling game may naturally succeed because it is dramatically appropriate. It has nothing to do with the written plot, but it fits.

(F) Meta-game: This is a catch-all category for concerns of the GM and players. A gamble may succeed because it is getting late in the evening and people want to go home. Certain issues may be avoided because some players find them offensive. A PC may disappear because the player can't show Etcetera.

(G) Group Consensus (from Sarah Kahn): This is a sort of combination of Reality and Description resolution, in which the entire group combines efforts to determine what the "expert swordsman's" best strategy really would BE when the player of the swordsman knows nothing of combat. It is often use to counteract the problems of "description" resolution. It often takes the form of "he who knows the subject best is empowered to define the reality."

(H) Dice: Technically dice will not be used in a "diceless" game, but I included them to be completist, and to show how they are just one among a large number of factors. Dice can be used as additional input into any number of resolutions. Mechanics often call for die rolls, but a mechanicless game can also use dice to represent random factors (The rule being, say, "High good, low bad").

Besides the variety of input, action resolution can be different in method or style of handling -- like how the results are presented. For example, even if two GM's use the same mechanics and die rolls: one might describe to players using only descriptive terms, and he keeps the character sheet and die rolls to himself.

I will weigh in here, and say that a Skill resolution system could, concievably exist.

When I was in sixth grade, we had an "Oregon Trail" game that lasted the whole series. Each member of the class kept records as to the health of his livestock, the supplies and gear he had on his wagon, and even the health of the people in his fictional family. We were presented with challenges once a week, that would affect the welfare of our families. These could be anything from vocabulary tests to essays to quizzes. We could also make decisions (as a group; we were not allowed to split up the wagon train) that would also affect our progress.

At one point, our group arrived late to a mountain pass; we could either risk going through the pass and get hit by a storm, or we could turn back and wait until the following year. Our class (much to my chagrin) opted to try for the pass. "Donner, party of four? Donner, party of four." In order to survive the ordeal, we were required to stand eight feet from a garbage pail, put a single die on one FOOT, and use that foot to put the die into the bucket. We could either hop forward, or just toss it, but if the foot or the die hit the ground, our whole "family" died in the pass.

I believe that yes, a Skill mechanic is entirely possible... though not really germaine to the kind of roleplaying games that we usually think of.

If DFK is not valid, then what is the alternative? How does DFK specifically fail? What is so broken about DFK that it cannot be expanded to include a greater depth -- ignoring for the moment adding to its breadth.

Claiming DFK is "broken" or "doesn't work" in such an instance is, for me, throwing out the baby with the bathwater (for example, for me, John's criticism of the DFK system falls into this category of criticism -- level of importance seems like an axis along which the resolution systems can fall, but it is not useful as a categorization of said systems).

Andrew Morris wrote: Thomas, that's more what I was looking for when I started this thread. I'd like to hear more about why you feel DFK isn't a good classification system when you have a chance to comment further.

As to the question you raised ("It's a classification system based on, what exactly?"), I'd say it's based on immediately identifiable core qualities. What I mean by that is we (your average gamers/game designers)look at rolling dice, comparing scores, and resolution by speaking as three distinict categories, distinct because of their quintessential characteristic. All DFK does is lump similar methods together and name them (at least, that's my take).

Others have stated that they have a different viewpoint on what DFK is/does. John Kim says (over here) that Drama and Karma are a split defined by reference to game traits or not, with Fortune being an unrelated category defined by its use of randomizers. Now, that viewpoint is interesting because it makes DFK seem a little shaky to me. It's one thing to define a set of categories based on central characteristics. It's another to define a set of categories based on dichotomies. Either one is useful and valid, but mixing them together seems like a broken system to me. -[Emphasis added, Thomas]

Sorry for being away form the discussion for a while, as I was out of town for the holiday weekend.

There were a couple of questions posed to me about what I think of Skill (uppercase, as opposed to character skills). Well, I think Skill as a resolution mechanic is not just possible but entirely valid. The shortcomings I mentioned I don't think make it any less valid, only less desirable for certain players.

Tossing dice onto a tray, throwing darts at a dartboard, throwing horseshoes, arm wrestling, dropping grains of rice from above one's head into a shotglass, or whatever are completely legitimate ways to determine success or failure in an RPG. They are, however, both unusual and give a player a Gamist advantage for something he himself can physically do better in the real world. If all the players in your group accept the idea that real-world stength and coordination should matter in an RPG and that noone will be unduly helped or hindered compared to his fellow players then I say go for a Skill resolution mechanic. Personally, I was a fan of the game show Double Dare, which allowed people to answer trivia and general knowledge questions or perform a physical challenge in order to accumulate points. I don't rule out some similar mixing of methods in RPGs.

I see two really useful places for Skill as a resolution mechanic in combination with others. First, an opposed action between two player characters could come down to a challenge to see who does better at a particular activity in real life. Second, a player who's looking for an exceptional success or even a simple success against terrible odds could be assigned a difficult real-life test of skill instead of depending on a random die roll or spending enough of a valuable in-game resource to assure success.

Additionally, maybe there could even be a Karma resource in a game called Luck or somesuch which is determined every session on a 1-20 scale by throwing a dart at a dartboard. Hit a 20 on the dartboard, get 20 Luck points this session. Hit a one, and get one point. Hit a bullseye, and maybe you get 50. I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere out there people are playing poker or craps with in-game resources -- beat me at a hand of real-world poker, and you get a pot filled with in-game cash, equipment, or maybe even magical energy, into which we both placed bets. Games like craps or blackjack where there is a house player make sense if the players bet resources and the GM is the house -- all resources the GM gets go to unfriendly NPCs and/or monsters.

John, does the point that Drama and Karma are the inverse of each other (which you make in the other DFK thread), with Fortune being an unrelated category, indicate that DFK needs some fixing? I'd be inclined to say yes, but I have a hard time articulating why, other than the fact that it seems the classification system is a bit mixed.

I suppose I'm a bit confused concerning what we expect the classification system actually to do. DFK "works" for me, because it does what it needs to do.

Before I'd encountered the terms in Ron's System Does Matter article at Gaming Outpost c.1998 I had certainly used all three means of resolution; but if you'd asked me about the mechanics of any game, I would automatically have described how the dice were used. DFK made me aware that there were other mechanics in the games I played besides dice, and further that there were two distinct types of such mechanics--those which relied primarily on objective character scores and those which relied primarily on subjective judgments.

Later, when I read Erick Wujcik's Dice and Diceless article here, my understanding of DFK enabled me to realize that he was compacting two different kinds of resolution systems--karma and drama--into one called "diceless".

Ultimately, what DFK does for me is keep me aware that there are different means of solving the same problems in games, and that the options go beyond deciding what kind of dice curves to create or whether to use cards. Karma and drama options are open to us.

I don't have to be thinking in terms of the categories while I'm designing; I just need to be aware that thinking in terms of how to set up fortune-based mechanics is limiting, and the best solutions for some game design problems might be found in some non-fortune system.

What else do you expect the categories to do?

I see some value in John's categories as analytical tools for understanding how a game works, and possibly as examples of approaches that have been used by others; but I don't see that level of refinement as particularly more valuable than DFK in terms of forcing us to think outside our usual approaches. Having three simple categories does that well, in my opinion; having a lot of nuances is useful once we've decided which way we want to go generally, but it's easier to lose sight of the basic distinctions, which I think DFK preserves.

--M. J. Young

After some thought I've come to the conclusion that I have the same problems with DFK that I have with Stances. That is: they are incredibly useful for exactly what MJ said. They jump up and down and say "Hey, there are more ways to do this!"

And at that, they do a great job. Stance theory says "Hey, anyone can manipulate the environment, it's okay!" DFK says "There's more at work here than dice, and that's okay!"

Most people seem fine with Stances doing just that, waving the flag of what is possible. DFK does the same thing with resolution. It doesn't have to be comprehensive, it just has to say "there's more out there." If we want something more from it, well, something's gotta give.

Personally, I'm fine with it as it is because I don't know what more I would want from it. If you could point out something that would be useful, but that it clearly doesn't do, I'd be all for a replacement...

Thomas

M. J. Young wrote: Ultimately, what DFK does for me is keep me aware that there are different means of solving the same problems in games, and that the options go beyond deciding what kind of dice curves to create or whether to use cards. Karma and drama options are open to us.

LordSmerf wrote: They jump up and down and say "Hey, there are more ways to do this!" ... Personally, I'm fine with it as it is because I don't know what more I would want from it. If you could point out something that would be useful, but that it clearly doesn't do, I'd be all for a replacement...

Why throw out DFK? Why not simply make it DFKS?

We're talking about classifying methods of resolution here, right? What's specifically broken with the DFK categorization?

Hrm...I still don't understand anyone's actual objection to it. Thus, please correct me in the following: it sounds to me that DFK is believed not to work because it isn't inclusive enough. Or, by example, complaining that using a PC/Mac categorization scheme is broken because it doesn't detail everything about an individual computer.

Is that close to the idea being expressed about the (lack of) utility of DFK?

I think geryorm is right. As a matter of fact, the only thing different really between F and S is the level of randomness. In a Fortune mechanic, someone might be able to roll dice a little better than another, but dice are still pretty random and uncertain. With a Skill mechanic, one person is pretty likely to either be better or get better at certain Skill-related tasks. If not, then it's just a Fortune mechanic using something other than dice. So, using DFKS instead of just DFK makes plenty of sense to me.

If another type of mechanic comes along, we can argue whether or not that's different enough to be considered at that time. As for Skill, though, I think it's different enough from Fortune that it may deserve its own category -- and it will if it becomes common enough and needs to be refered to as something other than "Game X's replacement for Fortune mechanics".

greyorm wrote: Hrm...I still don't understand anyone's actual objection to it. Thus, please correct me in the following: it sounds to me that DFK is believed not to work because it isn't inclusive enough. Or, by example, complaining that using a PC/Mac categorization scheme is broken because it doesn't detail everything about an individual computer.

Andrew Morris wrote: Hmm...I don't know. It seems to me that if you have a classification system, it should be as inclusive as possible. Serving the purpose of pointing out that there are other options can just as easily be accomplished by a theory or statement, without the need for any actual classification. I'm a little thrown by a classification system that has a primary function other than classification.

Being a newcomer to the Forge but a long-time RPG theorizer, I'm simply amazed at the length and breadth of big words that you guys use to describe absolutely nothing. It's like a bureaucrat's wet dream here.

So if I (in my infinite stupidity) am able to discern the timbre of this discussion, it has to do with the validity of player skill-based resolution? So far I'm seeing way too many lemmings nodding in the affirmative to this before jumping off the cliff so I'll try to save as many of you furry bundles of love as I can. It won't work. At least, not unless you're a specific kinda gamer, the one that is referred to on other posts as a "gamist". Yeah basing task resolution on real-life feats of skill works for a beer-and-pretzels kinda game, like determining how well your character can decipher an arcane chart by how long you the player can balance all the core Rolemaster products on your face. It's cute, but the reason for our hobby to us simulationists and narrativists, as some astute mind pointed out earlier in the post, is to...*ahem*...play a role...not to play kick-the-dice-in-the-bucket or dodge-dice or spin-the-dice or what-have-you. Hell, the only reason games have dice or cards as a skill resolution system is to represent the impartial nature of fortune that affects everyone alive. Allowing tasks to be resolved with player skill is making even fortune partial. Take away that aspect of chance and we're relying on things like athletic skill and GM fiat exclusively, and we might as well go back to playing Cowboys and Injuns (or Amber RPG, which is probably more ridiculous)

This is not to say that player skill should not have any impact on the gameplay at all. To the contrary, I think all games should reward good gamesmanship, which in RPGs amounts to good knowledge of the game, convincing character portrayals and smart play. People who play thusly should be rewarded above the other players, either with a longevitous character or more experience points or such. Also, I am not adverse, and am actually a big fan of augmenting a character's action based on the skill of the player. If a player is a competent orator and his character has to give a speech to convince the NPCs, I will allow the player to write and deliver the speech as his character would, and if the product is admirable I'll give the player a hefty bonus to his roll. Likewise, if a player is an experienced fencer and wishes to demonstrate a maneuver he would like to execute on a drunken rake, based on the proficiency of the demonstration I would likewise give the fencing player a bonus to HIS roll. Both are examples of actions that do not reward the players for possessing a skill that is lost to the rest of the group, but actions which reward the players for enriching the game by virtue of their experience.

Notice, however, I said I'm a big fan of AUGMENTATION, but NOT having such displays be the crux of action resolution. If skill resolution inside the game is accomplished by an analogous skill use outside the game, such as success in combat being resolved by a display of fencing technique bv the player, players would invariably have to have characters who possess the players skill and would thus not be "role-playing" as much as "acting like themselves". Otherwise, if skill resolution inside the game is NOT predicated on a mirrored skill use but another arbitrary skill, such as jumping a chasm again by balancing Rolemaster on one's countanance, the game then goes to NOT the best player, but the person with the flattest face.

In any case, randomization is preferable as the underlying resolution mechanic so everyone has a chance to play whatever they want without fear of their own idiosyncracies and disabilities. And again, the advantages a player has in any system should be represented by the characters statistics, and the gamer's skill in one thing and one thing only: Role-playing.

The God of the Machine wrote: So if I (in my infinite stupidity) am able to discern the timbre of this discussion, it has to do with the validity of player skill-based resolution?

Thanks for clearing that up. Again, my stupidity knows no earthly limits.

That DFK think seems like a lot of pigeonholing to me. Maybe I'm too young, but I've never seen a purely Fortune game ever. Likewise, never seen a system where you didn't have to make a statement to do something (with the exception of the Children of a Lesser God RPG, published by FASA in the mid '80s, I believe, where everyone had to communicate in American Sign Language and weird, ululating grunts). I don't know if this DFK framework is a very good tool, since pretty much every RPG has to have all three in order to work, although I don't know why Tweet called something as obvious as "Characteristics" or "Statistics" "Karma".

Yes, hybrid systems are the norm. If you're interested in that as a topic, look at some of the older threads on DFK -- the consensus reached was pretty much what you stated here.

Actually, the problem I have with DFK as a classification system is that the categories are completely arbitrary.

It's very similar to the Stance split: Actor/Author/Director. No single question can tell you the full story, for example: Is there a randomizer involved?

Well, here's the thing. I'm not sure I see the need for a classification system here. Just as we don't really need to classify Stances.

Is this DFK thing supposed to be a system of classification, or is it supposed to be a model to describe how games are played? I do agree that as the former it doesn't work, since pretty much every RPG I can think of involves all three (Amber being the one exception). As a model, however, it works beautifully, since it does describe the three things which differentiate one character action from every other character action.

Okay, let me sum up my thoughts here, to make it clear what I was looking for when I started this thread:

1) I think DFK is still a valuable tool for game designers.
2) I think DFK needs some work (which I talk about here).

What I want to know is who agrees with me on either or both points. If you don't, why? Many people have stated their thoughts, so let me make it clear I'm not saying I haven't heard that. I just want to make sure that if this thread continues, it doesn't drift off target. If you want to discuss some other element of DFK, start a new thread, and I'll join in the discussion.

greyorm wrote: Why throw out DFK? Why not simply make it DFKS?

The God of the Machine wrote: Is this DFK thing supposed to be a system of classification, or is it supposed to be a model to describe how games are played?

The fact that there are combinations or hybrids in games doesn't make identifying the categories without value, just as identifying the primary colors isn't useless simply because most colors are some combination of them.

Alex, why does it matter at all whether there is a game that just uses 1 of these things? Why is that even important? The purpose is to be able to identify classes of mechanics that will be used in some combination in a game in a manner that makes it quick and easy to compare similiarities and differences.

Dice, and cards, and picking random words out of a hat are all Fortune based mechanics. The similiarities of what a fortune based mechanic brings to a game vs. a karma or drama mechanic allows us to recognize that while dice and picking words from a hat may seem radically different that they can, in fact, serve much the same function in a game. If someone says that to hit and damage rolls are driven by Karma mechanics in a game, I know that combat will play differently than one driven by Fortune mechanics and in what ways even before getting into specific rules.

They, like most other jargon around here, have some very important and specialized uses that I recommend you familiarize yourself with before attempting to critique them.

A little more conversation and constructive discourse and a little less effusive ranting and opinion dumping would be appreciated in your posts.

greyorm wrote: Arbitrary: Determined by chance, whim, or impulse. To quote a famous movie, "I don't think that word means what you think it does." The categorizations are not arbitrary, since they are split up according to the method used to obtain a result, and those methods are very clearly different as methods of resolving an action. I'm not sure how "arbitrary" can even be applied to describe them.

If they are arbitary, despite my inability to understand that, then please answer this question: what's the alternative? How do you make them less arbitrary? That might explain the problem to me better.

Well of course no single question can tell you the whole story! That's not a problem with categorization, though. That's like complaining defining a computer as a PC or a Mac is a bad categorization scheme because it doesn't tell you everything about the computer. Or complaining that the taxonomic categorization scheme for biological entities is broken because the Class or Order levels don't tell you everything you want to know about the Species level. Is that what you are complaining about here?

Unfortunately, I can't understand that at all. Why don't we need to classify them when they are different? It seems pretty obvious when you have different things, whatever those things are, that one would label them different things, rather than ignore that they exist as different entities at all.

Seems to me folks are looking for some mystical "ho wow!" revelation here regarding classificiatons, that the differences will enlighten them and cause them to fall to the floor weeping with sudden understanding of a greater cosmos, when what we are doing is talking about a pretty basic facet of human existance: describing how things are different from one another. It's not going to be mystical.

I have to ask what's next? Complaining that fish are different from dogs, but calling them fish and dogs is an arbitrary and useless classification scheme, something completely unnecessary? I don't get it.

Thomas, I'm not sure what you're getting at. By your useage one could call the definitions of the color spectrum tautological because Red is defined simply as being everying between this wavelength and that wavelength and everything else is not-red.

Yet such definitions are infinitely useful because they allow me to tell you what color a car is and have you know (within a range of possibilities) what I'm talking about.

They then give you a nice box to put related things in. Noting that cops have a tendency to pull over red cars for speeding more often than other colors is possible only because we have a box called "red" to put such observations in.

Noting the effects on the social dynamic of a game that choosing a fortune mechanic over a karma mechanic has (as I did in the other DFK thread) is possible only because there's a box labeled Fortune and one labeld Karma to put such observations in.

If I'm looking to foster a specific social dynamic in my game I can flip through my collection of observations on the effects different DFK mechanics have and select the combination that guides me to my desired experience. This is possible because I know what DFK means, I can identify DFK at work in various games, and I can interpret the social impact each has from observations of actual play. I can thus judge which combination of DFK I want to use for my game. I'm not seeing how you conclude this isn't useful for design.

Ralph, sort of, but not really. Let me try this again...

If we're talking about what color something is, then we have a category to utilize. "What color is it?" and then we go to a selection menu. If you want a car description you might want more detail: Color, Make, and Model? Red Toyota Camry. But each thing augments the other, none of them are over-ridden.

Perhaps what I'm getting at is that I like categories where a single element doesn't override all others. In Stance it's "Are you controlling something other than the Player Character?" in which case, no matter what other factors are involved, you have Director Stance. In DFK it's "Is there a randomizer?" in which case, no matter what other factors (fixed values, temporary values, dramatically appropriate values, whatever) it's Fortune. Something about this just really hits me wrong.

Does that make sense? I think it's a valid complaint, but it may not be... thoughts on that?

Thomas

LordSmerf wrote: Perhaps what I should have said is that the categories are tautological. That is, when you ask "What is the classification system based on?" the only answer is "Well, on whether it involves Randomizers, and if it doesn't whether it involves comparing fixed values or not." Same thing with Stances: "Well, it's about whether you are controlling just characters or more than that, and if it's just characters what level of information you are using to make decision."

M. J. Young wrote: That's the second time I've seen you say that the first question in distinguishing DFK is whether or not it uses randomizers; and I don't think that's correct at all. It just happens to be one way to do it.

Your two questions are 1) does it use randomizers and 2) if not, does it rely on fixed value comparisons. But I could restructure that to two different questions, 1) is it subjective (which makes it drama) and 2) if it is objective, does it rely on fixed or variable values. With some thought, I could probably come up with the question that distinguishes karma from the other two as well--here it is: 1) does the best score always win and 2) if not, is the winner picked by a randomizer or a person's choice.

<snip>

Thomas,

So, you are describing a mechanic where the randomizing factor makes a method you think is Drama into a Fortune method when you believe it should not be -- or rather, that it is the latter when it could be the former without the latter. That seems to be the basis for your complaint, correct, that the categorization is confusing based on a situation like this?

In other words, if I say, "I swing my sword and cut him in half," that is Drama, correct? Are you saying tha if I make that statement, and then roll a die to determine if that statement is true, the DFK classification system is broken because it is clearly Drama being subverted to Fortune and thus confusing the issue of what sort of resolution is occuring?

For me, the solution is really simple and not problematic: if it has randomization, then even if other numbers/comparisons are involved, if other statements are involved about what happens, then if the method to resolve what happens is based on the random result of some event, it is Fortune. It is not Drama, even if you make a statement about what you want to happen, and whether that occurs or not relies upon the outcome of a Fortune mechanic.

I'm not sure how/why that's problematic or confusing or non-utilitarian? (or even if I've guessed your complaint correctly)

Valamir wrote: Noting the effects on the social dynamic of a game that choosing a fortune mechanic over a karma mechanic has (as I did in the other DFK thread) is possible only because there's a box labeled Fortune and one labeld Karma to put such observations in.

The God of the Machine wrote: I don't know if this DFK framework is a very good tool, since pretty much every RPG has to have all three in order to work, although I don't know why Tweet called something as obvious as "Characteristics" or "Statistics" "Karma".

Because I don't know what "tautological" means, does that make me a bad person?

:(

The God of the Machine wrote: Because I don't know what "tautological" means, does that make me a bad person?

Andrew Morris wrote: 1) In a hypothetical boffer LARP, the only mechanic is that if you are hit with a weapon, your character is dead. This is way more simple than most boffer LARPs, but it'll do for discussion.

Drew-

As to "formally adding" Skill, I don't think that's really possible. Not because I don't think it's valuable, but because there's really nothing formal about the classification itself. I might be wrong, but my take on it is this:

1) Tweet creates the terminology (specifically for Everway, not as a general rule)
2) Ron puts forward DFK as a tool for general use
3) Others agree, and the terms fall into general use

So, it's not as though there's some "RPG Terminology Council" to appeal to or anything. I've just put forward my belief that DFK, while useful, is incomplete, making it a less valuable tool than it could be. So, I will use Skill when I have occasion to discuss such things. If others agree, they'll start using it too. If it becomes widespread, maybe Ron will put it in the provisional glossary. So let's not worry about any formal acceptance right now. Everyone's stated what they think, and there's been lots of good discussion, even if I don't agree with everything.

Okay, with that out of the way....glad to hear that you agree.

Thanks for the clarification.

As a new reader to the Forge I got the impression that there perhaps was a kind of group consensus as to which terms were considered standard and which weren't. Obviously the process by which they are adopted is fairly organic, but I got the impression there may be some point at which a term's meaning and usage may be "fixed" as it were.

Seems it's actually even more organic a process than I thought!

Again, thanks for the clarification.

Drew

I believe the best way to lay claim to a bit of terrain, as it were, would be write an article for publishing on the Forge articles page, so that your argument may be referenced in future.