Hello,

First of all, let me apologize if this topic was abundandly discussed before, but I would like to ask a few questions about this subpart of the model. I put this thread here because it appears to be strongly connected to gamedesign, but feel free to move it if needed.

In the provisional glossary DFK is explained as three resolution mechanics in systems. My first question – while I was reading this article – was to know whether or not there are only three identified resolution mechanics or if this “DFK” refers to more, just keeping the name of the first three identified by J. Tweet in Everway. Of course, if there are more, I am very interested to know the other ones you identified.

Lately, I have came across a few games from a french studio called Ballon-taxi , namely “Larmes de Rouilles” (Tears of Rust) and “Hellywood” where another mechanic was used, or at least blended with the other ones. I think that Hero wars uses something quite similar for extended contests, as do some various diceless systems (maybe Active Exploits, but I can’t remember). This resolution mechanics is simply bidding. The character or the player has some pool of a specific ressource (in this case, I don’t want to mix up with the reserved definition of ressource in the model) and he just use it to solve problems. Each problem needs him (PC or player) to spend all or a part of his pool, with both the risk he can’t spend enough to solve the problem and the need to manage his pool for the whole game session. The basic resolution of opposed actions is auction.

This might be blend (and usually is) with other mechanics.
For example, there are many different combinations with Fortune. In a first case (Hellywood’s case), thes players bet some amount of their own pools (let’s say physical pool, social pool and mental pool to be simple), roll the dice, and the winner wins nothing but the looser looses both bids. Another blended mechanic would be to bid from a pool of dice and the effects of action will depends from the results of these dice.
In another French superhero game project, the resolution is mainly though Karma, but the PCs and NPCs might bid some “super points” to higher their stats and win the stat opposition.
In some diceless games, when there is need to “test”if the action succeeds or fails, you can spend an amount of Action Points to make it sucessful.

Well, I don’t know if you think that bidding is per se a fourth resolution mechanic (which I do think) but I am really willing to share thoughts about this and to sharpen my own understanding.

Thanks,

Brand.

Hi Brand,

I think bidding certainly raises this question.

But maybe it can fit under Karma. The example of karma used most often is the system used in Amber RPG -- in this the scores compared change only rarely.

But we might look at a changeable resource and see that, at any given moment, the amount available is fixed. The choice of bidding might be viewed as just how much Karma to commit in a particular conflict.

Hey Brand,

I think that bidding is not a seperate class of resolution mechanism in RPG's because in the end, the bid becomes either a fortune or a karma mechanic. I can' think of a way to have a bid without either 1.) comparing the final amounts bid between the particpants (Karma) or 2.) rolling some randomizer (probably with better chances/ more dice in the favor of the highest bidder or the bid is pointless.)

In the first case its a direct comparison. The only difference between bidding and, say, comparing scores on a character sheet is that the scores on the sheet have been distributed far before the present conflict that the mechanism is resolving. All systems are, in fact, resource managment. Its just that with many you fix your resources at the beginning and they remain constant. Bidding systems are far more fluid but are still mechanisms of the resource managment variety.

To say it more clearly the method of resource managment in a game is supportive of the actual resolution mechanism, but is not itself a resolution mechanism.

best

Trevis

Well, I thinks there's something more than Karma, though I can't exactly figure it out.

As said before, this bidding might be combined with any of three mechanics of DFK, with dice or diceless games but I still don't know whether it is actually a fourth resolution mechanic or just "something else" combining with those.

For example, let's say your Action Points become Action Dices, and this becames immediatly more Fortune oriented than just "temporary karma". Thus, I don't know exactly what to think about all this :D

To say it more clearly the method of resource managment in a game is supportive of the actual resolution mechanism, but is not itself a resolution mechanism.

I'm with Tony on this. The bidding a resources don't determine DFK, what determines DFK is what's compared to determine an outcome. If one bids to buy dice, which are then rolled and compared, it would be Fortune. If one bids and compares total bid, the method is Karma.

Roll dice and add something is Fortune resolution, with one exception: it becomes Karma resolution when the contribution of the dice cannot make any difference to the final result.

There's nothing that says a system can't switch modes, nor that a system can't use different DFK modes for different kinds of resolution.

Yes, I didn't involve a system cannot switch, I am just trying to better understand the model. And you guys are very helpful for this :))
That's why I am continuing my "dumb" questions even though you both already answered me. To understand better.

My question about the dice+stats roll was to understand what is the true meaning of Karma resolution and Fortune resolution. I assume from your answers that any resolution which includes a randomizer, except if it doesn't have any influence are Fortune resolutions.

Well, Ok. That actually helps.

This means that Karma is just to compare two fixed stats. And if I develop even though it looks absurd, comparing secondary stats which include a random factor is not any more karma but some other mecanic (here fortune).
In such a situation, what to say about to compare secondary stats which include a not fix neither random factor (which would be the outcome of bidding)? To me this sounds not karma anymore because there is this "weird factor" and this is very similar to stat+roll vs target number. Just the stat+roll becames stat+bid.

This might mean two things to me (but here again, I am just trying to understand, don't think I get any pleasure to ask dumb questions): either stat+roll is a karma resolution, either both stat+roll and stat+bid are other mecanics.
I will try to explain better, but I'm having hard time to be clear due to my poor english level. Sorry.

If the key of karma resolution is to compare two values representing the effectiveness of a character and either the difficulty of the task or the effectiveness of his opponent (A), well, which is important is not the way theses value are calculated. The resolution, I mean the thing which says if an action succeeds or not, is just the comparison. We could then write a karma resolution like. Thus if (A) is true, it means that a stat+roll vs target number is still a Karma resolution.
We already spoke about this, and I agree this doesn't sound correct to me.

Then if the key of karma resolution is to compare two fixed values and thus which is now important is the way values are calculated (B), then the stat+bid vs target number is not Karma resolution because this value actually changes depending on the player's strategy. So if (B) is true, stat+roll and stat+bid are other mecanics.



To summarize, to me

either we have :
- Raw outcome of a roll (ex BPRS)= Fortune
- Stat vs TN = Karma
- Stat + Roll vs TN = Karma
- Stat + Bid vs TN = Karma

either we have :
- Raw outcome of a roll (ex BPRS) = Fortune
- Stat vs TN = Karma
- Stat+Roll vs TN = Fortune
- Stat+bid vs TN = something else.


Sorry for this very unclear post. Here again, I not trying to provoke in any way, I am just trying to have a deep understanding.

Hi brand.

I think its your second one

brand wrote:
- Raw outcome of a roll (ex BPRS) = Fortune
- Stat vs TN = Karma
- Stat+Roll vs TN = Fortune
- Stat+bid vs TN = something else?

Well I do understand that ressource management does not interfere with resolution. This is a point we agree on. As I agree as creation as a special type of bidding. But I don't agree about your PC creation argument for the specific question of resolution, indeed because this is at a ressource management level (creation) and this doesn't not interfere with the resolution itself.

But bidding is not only ressource management, it's also introduces something else. It gets rid of certainty (like randomizing does) for example and give a stragetic choice.

So if we have a Karma resolution where A beats B because A's stat is better than B's, and it is always the same until either B can improve is stat or have modifiers from roleplaying for example, it is very different from a situation where A get better than B because he bidded. It is different because the winner is not always the same, because there is some strategic intent involved in the resolution, and some dymanic factor.

If both follow under the Karma category (why not, I don't mind), maybe this one should be divided into interesting subsets. Because these two resolutions are totally different. Maybe somebody already did this job?

I agree that bidding doesn't seem to be a fourth resolution mechanic, although it is an interesting subset of Karma. (Marginal note: IMO, Karma is arguably just a trivial form of Fortune.)

However, would this be a new category? Let's call it category X, because I don't want to settle on a name yet.

Category X: resolution based on (or influenced by) objective real-world tests of skill.

E.g.: Holding your breath for as long as possible. Naming as many African capitals as you can in 30 seconds. Throwing darts at a board. Estimating the number of marbles in a jar (without going over). Have a staring contest.

I am not sure if any of these have been tried in an RPG, but they are features of other games. Darkover by Eon Games is one notable example. Some miniature naval wargames resolve combat by having the players estimate ranges for gunfire and angles for torpedo fire, or by having them play a sort of "pin the tail on the donkey" on a layout of the enemy ship.

Okay, now I think I have a name for Category X: Sport.

Hi guys,

Actually, this topic was discussed not that long ago:

Drama, Fortune, Karma -- Is there anything else?
Drama, Fortune, Karma -- Still valid? [split]
DFK (and SRV): Concrete examples and discussion (long-ish)

Those three threads together, I think, were a fairly thorough discussion of the subject.

BTW, I think bidding, as brand describes it, is pretty standard karma.

Hi Elliott,

The discussion of "Skill" as a fourth category (same as what you've suggested as "Sport") started in this thread. To me it has always appeared patently obvious that this is indeed a distinct fourth category. Others have disagreed, assigning Skill to one of the other three categories based on some single point of similarity or another (e.g. the outcome is uncertain, Fortune outcomes are uncertain, so it's Fortune; or, the player's actual performance can be seen as a value, and the skill contest is a comparison of those values, so it's Karma.) Overlooking the fact that any of the categories can be collapsed into any other category by similar arguments.

The ongoing discussion of this, as exemplified by the threads Tim linked to above, has led to a sort-of-consensus that the whole DFK classification scheme is actually not very useful so it's not worth arguing about. Or at least, it's no more important than lots of other ways to characterize resolution systems, such as high.low in points of contact, search/handling time, and stakes-setting methods (e.g. task/conflict). It's also been repeatedly observed that most real resolution systems are combinations of D, F, and/or K. My view is that the main usefulness of DFK is to make novice game designers aware of the range of possibilities for resolution systems beyond roll-high and roll-low. (Or, going the other way, to reinforce Lumpley Principle ideas -- e.g. showing that resolution by GM fiat or player consensys is still a (Karma) resolution "system" rather than being "systemless.") To those ends, it appears to me, more categories are better if they suggest a wider range of possibilities.

But hey, I can play the category-shoehorning game too. The intent behind most bidding mechanics is that bidding expresses how much a player wants a particular outcome to occur. Neither the Karma nor the Fortune definitions imply anything about players' wishes for the outcome being important. Bidding would fit best into the Drama resolution category -- if only that category were defined in positive terms (e.g. direct expression of player wishes, remembering that a "player" here includes any GM) rather than its current negative ones (no reference to numeric values).

- Walt

Salut Brand!

I think there is a confusion here. DFK is a means to distinguish resolution systems (but I'm still unclear on what criteria they distinguish anything*). Bidding is a ressource management technique.

What you claim is that using a bidding mechanism changes the way the game feels. And I think you're totally correct.
There is a big link between ressources and resolution, one affecting each other, for example in the way you show it.

Would you agree that bidding and pool mechanics are the same thing? The pool being what contains the currency you use to bid with.

So would you be interested in a discussion about how to mix and match ressource and resolution techniques?

Hi Artanis, nice to see you here :)

I'm trying to get a bit quiet to let other people speak without interfering, but I just don't agree about one thing, or maybe this is just i'm using the wrong word in english : bidding is not just ressource management.

I don't deny bidding involves some ressource management, of course, but I am actually convinced it involves more (like to take into account the player or PC's motivation or the possibility for a PC to decide to actually fails and so on) far beyond the only domain of ressource management.

I'm jumping in with this while I'm reading the thread, so I hope I'm not repeating what others have said.

Drama, fortune, and karma are rarely found in pure form; they are almost always blended. The blending process is assumed in the conclusions, but when we say that something "is" one or the other of these, that generally is taken to mean that this factor overwhelms the others.

Thus let's look at

what brand wrote: My question about the dice+stats roll was to understand what is the true meaning of Karma resolution and Fortune resolution. I assume from your answers that any resolution which includes a randomizer, except if it doesn't have any influence are Fortune resolutions.