Recently I've be considering a mechanic that uses fortune to resolve conflicts, but then goes back and uses drama to fill out the details or "tasks" of that conflict. This came about after watching Star Wars Ep III, and realizing that, though I knew the outcome, the details were still exciting to me.

So, using an example from movie, here is how I think it would work:

The PC is Obi-wan Kenobi, the NPC is Anakin Skywalker. They are standing on the platform on Mustafar right before their fateful duel. Obi-wan's player declares his intent: To destroy Darth Vader (either by killing him or returning Anakin to the Light Side). The player rolls for two things: succes and narration rights. He rolls... failure to reach his goal, but with narration rights.
The fight begins. The GM and the player trade statements back and forth about the fight. Then comes the fateful moment. Obi-wan's player states, "I flip off the metal raft and onto the slope shore, taking the high ground. 'It's over Anakin... I have the high ground.'" The GM has Anakin do his risky jump and says to the player, "Time to resolve the conflict." Because the player won narration rights he gets to narrate chopping off three of Anakin's limbs and then watching him burn. But, because he failed the conflict roll, he narrates that Anakin lives and that he cannot bring himself to kill his former friend.

Does anyone see any flaws with this idea right off? Is it CR plus TR or simply CR and then description of the conflict?

It seems to be straight CR and then narration of the resolution to me. It might be a little more lengthy than most systems but it is still essentially the same.

Jonathan, I don't see any use of Drama here. Maybe I'm just being think, but I think the other Andrew got it -- it's regular conflict resolution. It uses a Fortune mechanic, with a separate Fortune mechanic for determining narration rights, but that's all, unless I'm missing something.

Oh, and did you just toss out an Episode 3 spoiler without warning? There are some of us who haven't seen the movie yet.

I apologize to those who haven't seen the movie yet. Hopefully when I said that the example was from the movie, those who didn't want to read it skipped it.

Hmmm...

I guess what I'm looking for is that resolution statements made by the GM and player fulfill two purposes: to flesh out the details of the conflict and to determine WHEN the conflict is resolved. In addition, I could see the details of the conflict being important later in the game. ie, your father's lightsabre...

I'm not too familiar with drama resolution, so if you could give me some suggestions how how to fulfill my two goals above (while keeping the dramatic flow demonstrated by my example), i'd greatly appreciate it.

I was just kidding about the spoiler.

As to DFK and CR/TR, here's what the Provisional Glossary has to say:

Conflict resolution -- A Technique in which the mechanisms of play focus on conflicts of interest, rather than on the component tasks within that conflict. When using this Technique, inanimate objects are conceived to have "interests" at odds with the character, if necessary. Contrast with Task resolution.

Task resolution -- A Technique in which the Resolution mechanisms of play focus on within-game cause, in linear in-game time, in terms of whether the acting character is competent to perform a task. Contrast with Conflict resolution.

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

Fortune -- A method of resolution employing unpredictable non-behavioral elements, usually based on physical objects such as dice, cards, or similar. See also DFK and Resolution.

Karma -- Resolution based on comparison of Effectiveness values alone. See DFK and Resolution.

In short, Drama is resolution by talking, Forture is resolution by randomization, and Karma is resolution by comparison of scores. Personally, I think there's more than this, and I created a couple of threads on that topic.

However, as far as I know, CR/TR can combine with DFK in any way. You could have Fortune-based task resolution, Karma-based conflict resolution, or any other pairing.

Drama is a bit sticky to describe, especially for me, since I have different take on it than some others. The default explanation (as I understand it) is that if you're not using randomizers or comparison of fixed values, you're using Drama. Others might be able to expand on that, but I think that's the core of it.

One quick question: If you're not really sure what Drama is, why is using it one of your goals?

I stated that I'm not too familiar with Drama resolution. In my understanding, Drama is just as I've described it - statements made back and forth between two or more parties about the situation. What I'm not to familiar with is variations of this idea.

As for why I want to use Drama: I want to learn more about how this particular resolution type works. I would like the resolution part of the conflict to be freeflowing and provide a means of give and take between the participants.

Perhaps you could point me to some systems that use drama well...

Most systems use drama resolution for uncontested actions. Say, "I open the door," the GM says, "OK, you see..." Drama depends on having what you narrate be accepted by the other players (including, if applicable, the GM).

Some systems explicitly grant narration rights about the details of a conflict, such as Primetime Adventures. In fact, I have a feeling that PtA would be right up the alley of what you're looking for. In that system, players roll several dice for conflicts; the highest number of successes wins the conflict, but the highest single number of a die wins the narration (and has to abide by the conflict outcome).

Freeform LARP games are Drama.

But I'm still not clear why you want to create a game using Drama in order to understand Drama. That sounds like, "I want to understand manual transmissions, and I don't right now, so in order to understand them, I'm going to design a car that has a manual transmission." Which leaves me scratching my head.

One thing that might be an issue: don't confuse Drama with narration. Drama is a Technique, narration is Ephemera.

Actually, at them moment, it's more like I've read about how a manual transmission works, now I want to play with one to gain some insight...

Here's the difference I see between Drama and narration: Drama has rules for determining outcomes, narration may have rules but they're more like limits on what can broached by the narration.

Here's a rule for Drama: If I make a statement, someone else can limit that statement or mutate it as long as they say, "But only if..." prior to making a statement of their own. If I agree, then I say, "Agreed." If I wish to further alter the statement I say "But only if..." If I wish to disallow my statement, I say, "Withdrawn."

My goal here is to gain insight on how to make a mechanic that moves quickly and fluidly, determines a definite end, and stays inside the overarching conflict. In the end, it doesn't HAVE to be Drama, maybe Karma or Fortune is the way to go, but I started there.

In fact, I'll go back and take a look at again and see if I might be better served with another type of resolution...

I still would like some Drama game suggestions though. :)

I appreciate the comments... if you have anymore please post them. I'll be back when I have thought and written some more.

Here's a rule for Drama: If I make a statement, someone else can limit that statement or mutate it as long as they say, "But only if..." prior to making a statement of their own. If I agree, then I say, "Agreed." If I wish to further alter the statement I say "But only if..." If I wish to disallow my statement, I say, "Withdrawn."