In GNS there's there types of conflict resolution:

narrative, by which the conflict is narrated out, with rules making sure arguments don't stall the game (Polaris is the purest example I can think of)

karmic, where fixed scores determine who wins a conflict

fate, where die rolls determine who wins

My question is, what about token systems, where players have a fixed amount of tokens at the beginning of a game and can spend as many as they want during a conflict, and whoever spends the most wins, but thus has less for later conflicts. It's sort of karmic, but the values aren't fixed, they're determined on the fly.

So I put the question to y'all, are tokens narrative, karmic, or fate. Or, is it the unspoken forth?

The three resolution methods are actually Drama, Fortune, Karma - and they are from Everway originally, not GNS. They don't have any particularly pertinent theoretical role at this point, either; it's more that one should be aware of them for design purposes. Theory-wise I personally feel that a person is more likely to get confused than enlightened by getting stuck in analysing DFK. In other words, I wouldn't worry about them too much in your shoes.

Now, token mechanics are solidly Karma-type: they concern ablative effectiveness values, but which I mean, instead of just comparing scores, you compare scores that are burned up by the comparison. One-use scores, in other words. Some types of token mechanics might be interpreted as Fortune as well in that the player might not know how many points he needs burn (Mortail Coil would be in this camp), but that's just what I mean by the problems of getting stuck in the definitions. DFK might have been useful in Everway, but I challenge anybody (in the good way; if you can do it, excellent) to base any meaningful analysis of higher-scale design considerations on it; the feel, purpose, handling time, granularity and almost everything else in resolution mechanics are independent of DFK, and often enough resolution systems outside Everway fall solidly in several of the categories by different reckoning. In this way it's very similar to Robin Law's player types - not useful for me, as I fail to derive any analytical results from the base model.

I've been thinking about this Eero and I think that GNS is a useful tool for analysis and design because its three concepts can be intermeshed. The fact that you were able to describe the OP's token system as being Karmic with an added hint of Fortune to it demonstrates how the system can be flexible enough to handle resolution mechanics that are not 'archetypal' D, F or K.

Things like handling time can be described by GNS because it is of greater or lesser priority to each archetype. For instance a typically Gamist design would place greater priority on speedy resolution than a typically Simulationist design, which requires accurate resolution more than anything else. A system which emphasizes both would therefore be considered a hybrid Gamist/Simulationist in relation to handling time.

For instance, the AD&D 3rd edition rules are heavily Simulationist for the most part, but certain aspects of resolution such as 'Take 10' or 'Take 20' are inherently Gamist (Not surprisingly their main function is to expedite a resolution).

-MJ

That's an interesting line of thought, Mickey, but I don't think it holds water over an extended set of designs. Creative Agenda as an issue is affected by so many other things apart from resolution mechanics that things like handling-time will only be pertinent in an extremely narrow field. I could see your idea having merit when we compare traditional GMing methods, for example - it might prove that fiat resolution corresponds with sim or dysfunctional nar attempts, for example, when we only consider the traditional repertoire of GMing methodology. But considering the whole media of roleplaying, I can put any of those resolution types to work for a wide variety of CA relatively easily.

Still, not really a topic to discuss in isolation - how about some game design or, even better, actual play to prove the point? You could start a thread about your play experiences with DFK, Mickey; I'd be interested in hearing whether you see any tendency in yourself to switch between resolution methods when you run a game as a GM, for example.

Sorry about the late reply. I've been contemplating The Big Model lately and I wanted to make a separate topic about it, but I got carried away and my paradigm changed. Now I'm more interested in why people play games, why people (myself included) design games, and how the Bible is essentially a Live Action Role Playing Game (with rules and game masters and resolution mechanics and everything). Some of these thoughts I have expressed in electropally's latest thread http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=26326.msg252201#new

I'm of a mind now that a GM in a 'traditional' game should be like a parent supervising child's play (ie impartial but interested in the outcome). The ideas expressed in GNS and the Big Model are not so much isolated concepts but rather techniques which can be used to create a balanced environment that is conducive to gaming. I'm not sure I agree with Ron on his opinion that only one of these techniques (as I call them) can be focused on, two at most, without compromising the game. I think that all three of them are important in some measure in every game.
Your absolutely spot on about the GM thing. It seems the Big Model holds more weight when applied to 'traditional' Game Mastery techniques than actual RPG design, because in most games with a traditional system, the GM has such an important role to play (on par with the game system itself in terms of actual play). I'm not so interested in how to describe a good game from a poor game, but rather a good GM from a poor GM, and analyzing group behaviors during play. This is what I feel the Big Model can be used (or at least adapted) to describe.
Unfortunately, I have little means to test my theory on account of the lack of role play enthusiasts in my area. I've been shopping around for a good play by post forum, but with little success. In any case I would rather get together in real time to play games, as it makes communication that much easier.

To be absolutely clear about the Drama, Karma, Fortune thing, there's nothing about Karma that says the values have to be fixed at one quantity. The game Nobilis offers a good example - resolution is determined by whoever has the highest score, but you usually achieve the highest score by pumping resource points into it.

The discussion seems to have moved on to more important things, but I thought I'd toss in that easy solution to the original query as long as it was hanging there.

In terms of the theory-stuff, these issues concern resolution techniques, and resolution is only one feature of the many techniques that interplay within a system.

Best, Ron

Actually, Mickey, the one really important point that juts out for me here is your lack of folks to play with. Now, I happen to live in a 2,000 people town myself, so I know all about not having people to play with - or I don't, in that I manage quite well by simply meeting new people and introducing them to roleplaying games. At least that was what I did when I returned to Sonkajärvi three years ago and wanted to find people to play with. Now I'll need to be doing this again soon, as all the teenagers I inducted then are moving on to university studies and I find myself with less and less of a roleplayer pool locally.

Anyway, my point is that if you can't find anybody to play with, the issue is more likely to be with the games you'd like to play or the manner they are presented in, rather than there being no prospective players anywhere around. We can discuss this in greater detail if you want, somebody here might have an idea or two for how you might find roleplaying-minded people.

Very true Eero, thank you :D

Well I live near the capitol of New South Wales, Australia -but that doesn't make it any easier.
The first topic I posted here was actually a show of hands to see if anyone was interested in some PbP, design-as-you-go fun, maybe on a "I'll play your game if you'll play mine" basis, but I'm not sure if this is the right forum for that (which is a shame considering there is such a pool of talented people here with so many interesting ideas).

Or maybe it is? I dunno but I like the idea of PbP in any case because it allows me time to organize my thoughts.

the issue is more likely to be with the games you'd like to play or the manner they are presented in, rather than there being no prospective players anywhere around.

Lastly, apologies to Tempvs for mooching off this thread :P

Meh, I don't mind. Most of my threads die after a certain period of time ;_; What is it about my comments that makes threads die? Every thread I reply to rarely lasts.

The Law of Entropy maybe?

I've looked over your posts to date. They're full of good ideas and clearly you are entering in dialogue, which is great.

Based on all my years of moderating here, your question is easy enough to answer: you don't post in Actual Play to speak of. In site community terms, that's like having a paper bag over your head and a sock in your mouth - hardly anyone can understand what you say or mean, unless we have an idea of what sort of games you play, what it's like, and what happens in them.

Post lots about your own game experiences in Actual Play and you'll see the understanding of your points in other forums skyrocket, and hence discussion of them will be something people want to do.

Best, Ron