Topic: Blended Mechanics?
Started by: M. J. Young
Started on: 12/21/2002
Board: GNS Model Discussion
On 12/21/2002 at 7:51am, M. J. Young wrote:
Blended Mechanics?
This is part of what Ron Edwards wrote: I disagree with you. As I have more-or-less interpreted the terms from Everway, they go like this:
1) Fortune = use of a randomizing mechanic of any distribution at all. 50/50, 100:1, whatever.
2) Karma = reference to a fixed value.
3) Drama = just sayin', without reference to quantitative values.
These are clean, distinct categories, and although a system might combine them, a specific mechanic does not (i.e. it's one of the three).
I've often suspected that people might think that fixed modifiers to a randomizing mechanic constituted a "Karma influence," and have waited patiently to correct it if it ever cropped up.
This was in answer to what I in part wrote: There are few purely fortune systems. Even a simple chart that provides different chance to hit for more experienced characters is a karma factor.
I think this disagreement significant enough to split to a new thread; you can find the rest of the quotes under The Box -- an idea for clarifying terminology.
I have read, several times, and on these forums, the complaint that D&D3E shifts over time from being a highly fortune to a highly karma system. I understand exactly what that means. If you are low level, your chance of success might be 5+D20, in which case most of what is involved in whether you succeed is going to be that very iffy die roll. On the other hand, if you get to the point where your chance of success is 80+d20, that die roll means a lot less compared to your base chance. Most of the things that you hoped you had some chance of doing when you started are now automatic--that is, if you needed a 25 to succeed at a certain task, you had a 5% chance of doing so then, and now you won't be asked to roll the dice. Yet it is, in a sense, the same mechanic--it has just shifted from being largely fortune to being largely karma.
I can't help thinking that non-random modifiers on a fortune system are a dilution of the fortune nature of that system, whether they are the sort that spring from other game values and mechanics (thus karma) or merely the referee's decision that "well, you're the PC, so I'll bonus that roll +5, which makes it a success" (drama). Yet Ron clearly thinks otherwise. He insists that if there is any fortune element in the system, it is purely fortune.
I could create absurd examples in which the modifiers swallow the die roll; at some point it seems to me that you would have to conclude the die roll was entirely inconsequential, and the system had become in essence a karma system (perhaps the example above is sufficient?). But if it is possible for the modifiers to so overwhelm the dice that they no longer matter to the outcome, and if in fact this makes what appears to be fortune actually essentially karma, is it not also the case that modifiers which distinguish the abilities of one character as opposed to another based on character statistics or values must be karma adjustments on a fortune system?
I can't imagine that Ron hasn't thought of this, so I look forward to his response. On the other hand, I think that many of us have caused him to re-examine his thinking on GNS/DFK subjects before, and I think he's mistaken on this one.
Ron?
--M. J. Young
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 4615
On 12/21/2002 at 3:10pm, Valamir wrote:
RE: Blended Mechanics?
I believe we had a couple of big threads on this topic with Pale Fire regarding what he was calling "randomness" or how random the die roll is.
I see exactly what you're saying MJ. In fact, in that thread (I'd link to it if I could find it) I came down on the side that mechanics like the first one in your example (d20+5) feel more random than mechanics like the second one (d20+80) because the ratio of random spread to total number of possible results is much smaller (80% in the first example 25% in the second).
So the larger the modifier is relative to the size of the randomized spread the more consistant the results will be.
However, I would NOT call this karma for a couple of reasons. One is that it technically isn't. It might be a fortune system that gives karmic-like results...but it isn't karma. Secondly it opens a whole can of worms which destroys the ability to use the terms meaningfully.
By the same logic above a sufficiently huge die pool would have to be categorized as karmic because as the pool size gets tremendously large the range of likely outcomes gets very narrow.
So I definitely think this is an important distinguishing phenomenon within fortune mechanics, I certainly wouldn't categorize it karmic. I would recognize its karmic-esque effects, however, primarily to ensure that that is the effect the designer was going for.
On 12/21/2002 at 3:59pm, Jack Spencer Jr wrote:
RE: Blended Mechanics?
I side with Ralph here on this. While I can see your point in your example, to pursue it is to simply destory and erode any meaningful use of the terms which would just knock everything back to square one.
So Fortune refers to a random factor of some kind. The random factor may be effectively meaningless, but so long as the, say, d4 is added to the stat of 1000, it is still a factor. Classifying it as fortune is merely identifying that the mechanic uses a random factor, not a judgement of how much bearing the random number has on the result.
On 12/21/2002 at 5:29pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Blended Mechanics?
Hi M.J.,
Yeah, I've thought a lot about this, and Ralph and Jack have pretty much stated my point of view.
We have:
FORTUNE
a) with quite unpredictable results (e.g. Ninja Burger)
b) with rather trend-type results, occasional reversals (e.g. Sorcerer, D&D damage rolls at ~6th level, Champions/GURPS at median skill levels)
c) with extremely predictable results (e.g. Champions/GURPS when skills get to 14 or higher, D&D damage rolls at high levels)
These are distinct things. I definitely agree with you that calling (c) "just Fortune" is overlooking important aspects of play. When discussing Fortune, we have to be clear about the probabilities involved and their impact on play.
KARMA
a) fixed, fixed, fixed. You have a "9" in sword-fighting, and that's that.
b) adjustable through Drama: Amber.
c) adjustable through Resource spending: Nobilis.
Does Karma (a) look a bit like Fortune (c), during play? It can. Does it surprise anyone that I think both of these are the least useful and fun in terms of actual role-playing.
I think that they are not the same things, mechanically / fundamentally, but they both tip play into the same Awful Pit. I think, M.J., that you're focusing on the Pit rather than on the processes, and Drama / Karma / Fortune, as terminology, is specifically about processes.
Best,
Ron
On 12/21/2002 at 7:00pm, GreatWolf wrote:
RE: Blended Mechanics?
As an example of "predictable" Fortune (somewhere between options (b) and (c)), I'd like to offer my Alyria game. Way back when I had been toying with making the game diceless. When Scarlet Jester approached me with the Diverse Lunacy system concepts, one of my design parameters was that I wanted low randomness without actually discarding the Fortune aspect. That led us to the system that we currently have. I don't remember the numbers off the top of my head, but I seem to recall that a character that has only one phase higher than his opponent has an approximately 88% chance of pulling off at least a marginal victory. And that is the way that I wanted it. There is still the chance of the underdog rolling a Full Moon and pulling off an incredible win, though, so randomness is not discarded altogether.
This is still a Fortune system but it is a far cry from a game like Ninja Burger, which is all about amusing failure, IMHO, and therefore has a highly random system.
Seth Ben-Ezra
Great Wolf
On 12/21/2002 at 7:36pm, Jack Spencer Jr wrote:
RE: Blended Mechanics?
Ron Edwards wrote: I definitely agree with you that calling (c) "just Fortune" is overlooking important aspects of play. When discussing Fortune, we have to be clear about the probabilities involved and their impact on play.
True, but this is only useful when discussing specific games rather than theory in general.
On 12/21/2002 at 8:46pm, M. J. Young wrote:
RE: Blended Mechanics?
I see what you're saying, and I seem to be vastly outgunned on this topic (some very impressive posters have sided with Ron, and thus far none with me); but I'm going to stick to my guns for a moment.
I am not certain whether this is so, but let me assume that in D&D3E they've abandoned the automatic miss for rolling 1 rule; with all the D20 variants out there, someone has probably trashed it. Now, let us suppose we have a task of difficult 15--we'll say it's opening a specific lock. The mechanic tells us that we roll D20 and add bonuses, and must meet or beat the target number.
For the character with no skill, no bonuses at all, this is clearly a fortune system. He's got to roll fifteen or better--6 chances in 20, a 30% chance of success. Those odds are against him, although not phenomenally so.
But my character is wearing these guantlets of dexterity for +3, with an Ioun stone that give me another +1, and my high dexterity gives me +4, along with my gnomish locks bonus for +2, and my skill in locks for another +4--I've got +14 altogether. For me, this is no longer a fortune system; it is a karma system. I don't have to roll the dice, because (eliminating the automatic failure rule) I cannot fail to open this lock. I am, karmically speaking, better than the lock, and it will always open for me.
I maintain that this system is always part fortune and part karma. As the character gains in bonuses, his ability subsumes more and more tasks as "automatic", in that he will succeed if he tries. Similarly, there will be tasks which the unbonused character cannot do (any task of difficulty 21 or greater) so from the beginning he is prevented by karma from succeeding. The fortune aspect of this particular mechanic only applies to those tasks which lie within 19 points of his bonuses plus one. By karma, he will always succeed at any task of a difficulty equal or less than his bonuses plus one, and never at any task of difficulty greater than his bonuses plus twenty. This mechanic, at least, must be seen in this sense, at least, to shift between fortune and karma, depending on whether the die roll is relevant to the chance of success.
If that is so, then it strikes me that in a fortune system, any adjustment which is based on distinctions of the character's abilities or resources is a karma modifier on a fortune system. As karma overwhelms fortune, it may become a fortune modifier to a karma system.
I don't see the problem of having such mixed mechanics; in fact, I think the use of the terms in this situation clarifies rather than obfuscates both their meanings and the natures of mechanics. Craps is a fortune game; football is karma. Most roleplaying games combine aspects into their mechanics, and I think it helps elucidate the nature of the mechanics to be able to speak of a karma adjustment in a fortune mechanic, or,
as Ron wrote: KARMA....adjustable through Drama: Amber.
I will accept that this may be a slip of the pen which does not mean, as it appears, a karma mechanic with a drama modifier. If that is what it means, I rest my case. But please explain.
--M. J. Young
On 12/21/2002 at 10:32pm, Seth L. Blumberg wrote:
RE: Blended Mechanics?
Ron pretty accurately describes Amber as having a Karma system modifed by a separate Drama system. (Actually, depending on Social Contract issues, this can become a Drama system with minor input from a vestigial Karma system.)
D&D3E does not have a Fortune system modified by a separate Karma system. It has a Fortune system whose statistical properties mean that outcomes become extremely predictable under certain circumstances.
On 12/21/2002 at 10:36pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Blended Mechanics?
Hi M.J.,
I don't get your point about Amber.
Resolution in Amber is handled by comparing numeric values of some fairly generalized attributes, scored by the ranks produced by the bidding system during character creation.
If two characters are engaged in a psychic duel, perhaps through the semi-telepathic medium of Trumps, the group looks at their Psyche values based on bid points: say one person, Oswald, bid 33 points on Psyche, and the other guy, Harvey, bid 10 (if a player-character) or was assigned 10 (if an NPC). Let's say they are very close in rank because no other character in the game has the equivalent of 11-32 points in Psyche.
Oswald wins.
Now, Amber does permit some tweaking. If role-playing, prior to the conflict, had given Harvey an edge of some kind, then the GM might decree that Harvey can avoid most of the damage involved, or even, perhaps give Oswald an unexpected smack.
The rules about this, unfortunately, are often deliberately misread to lead people to think that Drama overrides the Karma ranking, leading to quite a bit of he-said she-said in playing Amber. This would represent simply jettisoning the Karma system in favor of a fully-Drama one. As written, however, the system component for basic resolution is Karma, and the modifying (not over-riding) system component is Drama. I don't see how that "rests any case" for you, M.J.
I think that you may be reading too much fixed-outcome into the definition of Karma. In fact, I'm pretty sure that you are taking an outcome-based approach to all three terms, which is the source of the disagreement.
Best,
Ron
On 12/21/2002 at 10:42pm, Andrew Martin wrote:
RE: Blended Mechanics?
M. J. Young wrote: But my character is wearing these guantlets of dexterity for +3, with an Ioun stone that give me another +1, and my high dexterity gives me +4, along with my gnomish locks bonus for +2, and my skill in locks for another +4--I've got +14 altogether. For me, this is no longer a fortune system; it is a karma system. I don't have to roll the dice, because (eliminating the automatic failure rule) I cannot fail to open this lock. I am, karmically speaking, better than the lock, and it will always open for me.
Just because the outcome is obvious doesn't mean that the system has turned into a karma system. The player still has to roll according to the rules (unless the GM is using the "no rules" or "change the rules" golden rule). And, D&D D20 has critical results for a roll of 20 (and 18 or 19 for high skill, IIRC) on the D20, which the player can still hope for to get the task over with in a lesser amount of time. And besides, the GM can always state, if you don't roll the dice, your character fails the action, as the character obviously can't be bothered to actually do the action! :)
Edit:
What Seth wrote. (Cross-posted!)
On 12/21/2002 at 10:51pm, Seth L. Blumberg wrote:
RE: Blended Mechanics?
I don't think I've ever seen a triple cross-post before. I've certainly never been part of one before.
On 12/22/2002 at 12:24am, Le Joueur wrote:
You're Missing Each Other's Points
Okay, I think you guys have been arguing past each other long enough. It all seems to start with Mark's quote of Ron:
M. J. Young wrote:About DFK categories, Ron wrote: These are clean, distinct categories, and although a system might combine them, a specific mechanic does not (i.e. it's one of the three).
As far as I can tell, Mark's sees this as saying the 'roll two ten-sided dice' part is Fortune and 'add your skill level' as Karma (or 'take as many dice as your Agility' is Karma and 'roll them and count successes' as Fortune or et cetera). This is what I believe (not alone now?).
Ralph apparently read Mark's commentary as saying that a resolution was a mixture of the two, leaning one way or the other, depending upon the impact of each 'ingredient.' 'Roll two ten-sided dice and add your skill level' is 'more Fortune' when the skill level numbers are small, 'more Karma' when the skill level numbers are high. I also agree with Ralph that this doesn't make a resolution 'Karmic,' but then I think his 'sample' is too big (more than a "specific mechanic" per Ron's quote).
Jack further confuses the situation by suggesting Ralph's interpretation (in place of Mark's) would blur the definitions of Drama, Fortune, and Karma; I agree with this too, but again Ralph is talking about collections of mechanics. So all this means is that a collection of mechanics can be easily a mixture. Jack goes on to clarify things quite nicely; "Fortune refers to a random factor of some kind." Like I said, a single mechanic such as 'roll two ten-sided dice."
Then Ron reinforces both sides of the discussion; "I definitely agree with you that calling (c) 'just Fortune' is overlooking important aspects of play," says that a whole resolution is not just one mechanic. But then he appears to reinforce the converse when saying that a 'mostly Karma' system is not the same as a 'wholly Karma' system (apparently addressing Ralph's commentary).
Mark comes back feeling very much like he's been refuted, but he echoes Ron's comment about "important aspects of play" and the earlier "specific mechanic" stuff. However, he gets a bit backed into a corner trying to defend the opposite of Ralph's contention, which I don't think was his original point. He most succinctly gets to the difference (apparently by accident) with, "this system is always part fortune and part karma." The important word here is system; I think Ron is pretty clear that a system isn't usually all Karma or all Fortune or all Drama.
Ron is clearly confused (probably thinking that Mark is defending the converse of Ralph's contention) when he doesn't comprehend Mark's reference to Amber as 'Karma adjustable through Drama.' I think both parties are saying that the resolutions, the confrontations, in Amber are created through Drama and then Karma resolves them. Is your Psyche too low? Don't get into a psychic duel! Avoidance is the Drama.
Andrew argues that a system isn't more Karmic just because the modifiers tilt it far one way. The problem is Mark isn't saying that the system is Karmic, just the modifiers.
Basically, what I see Mark saying is that you have a Fortune system (like rolling dice versus a target number) and then you also have a separate mechanic of modifiers (bonuses from magic items, tools, attributes, skills and so on) that are Karmic in nature. These are separate mechanics in the same system; the thread title is a misnomer, he's talking about 'Blended Systems' (the plural of mechanic can be system). I strongly support this idea and have for some time and I think Ron does too (saying, "although a system might combine them"). The confusion seems to stem from Ralph taking Mark as saying that this talks about whole systems being Fortune or Karma only.
Now, have I got all that right? Can we avoid a protracted series of posting past each other?
Fang Langford
On 12/22/2002 at 12:57am, Valamir wrote:
RE: Blended Mechanics?
Actually Fang, I think you'd best go back and read MJs first post again. It seems to me that you've got things a might confused. MJs position was that the modifiers were a karmic dilution of a fortune mechanic in the same system. Seperating them like you suggest and treating them as seperate mechanics is exactly what Jack and I say SHOULDN'T be done.
In short...no this is a valid disagreement...not talking past each other at all.
On 12/22/2002 at 3:06am, Le Joueur wrote:
Re: Blended Mechanics?
Good point Ralph, but that just means that Mark was suggesting, indirectly, that a system should not be whole-categorized by Fortune, Drama, or Karma.
Let me elaborate.
Ron Edwards wrote: I disagree with you. As I have more-or-less interpreted the terms from Everway, they go like this:
1) Fortune = use of a randomizing mechanic of any distribution at all. 50/50, 100:1, whatever.
2) Karma = reference to a fixed value.
3) Drama = just sayin', without reference to quantitative values.
These are clean, distinct categories, and although a system might combine them, a specific mechanic does not (i.e. it's one of the three).
Thus 'roll dice' ("use of a randomizing mechanic of any distribution at all") and 'add a modifier' ("reference to a fixed value") 'as appropriate' ("just sayin', without reference to quantitative values") is three mechanics in one resolution system.
Mechanics for aiming are separate from the dice part of resolution. Mechanics for 'talent' based on an attribute are separate from resolution. Both of those reference "fixed values" and are thus Karma mechanics.
Mechanics for 'shooting in the dark' are situational and not a part of the success/failure part of a dice mechanic. Mechanics for striking from behind are separate from the resolution mechanic. Both are a result of "just sayin'" it's dark or you're behind the target and are thus Drama mechanics.
If you can't pull apart the various component mechanics of a system like this and use terminology like Drama, Fortune, and Karma to describe them, if you can only use these terms to describe 'the whole hog,' I would say their pretty pointless terms.
Almost as pointless as saying that a Narrativist only makes Narrativist decisions and no other. No, I argue that the way you seem to be saying the terms should be used is of little value, much like saying a game is made up of only one priority and that it never uses any other.
But since you can say 'this instance of game was Narrativist, but that one was Gamist' and still be talking about the same game, I think it is just as valid to say that a system can be based on a Fortune element which is modified by different types of Karmic and Dramatic elements and then talk about, when push comes to shove, which 'carries most of the weight.' To use these terms as generally as you imply reduces their significance to very small indeed.
Sure Karmic mechanics dilute the Fortunate impact of a system, but I think that Mark makes a good argument against an 'all Fortune' system.
I really think we need to wait and hear what Mark and Ron say before we go on describing what we think they're saying. I post this only because I want to be clear about what I am saying.
Fang Langford
On 12/22/2002 at 3:28am, Andrew Martin wrote:
RE: Re: Blended Mechanics?
M. J. Young wrote: I could create absurd examples in which the modifiers swallow the die roll; at some point it seems to me that you would have to conclude the die roll was entirely inconsequential, and the system had become in essence a karma system (perhaps the example above is sufficient?). But if it is possible for the modifiers to so overwhelm the dice that they no longer matter to the outcome, and if in fact this makes what appears to be fortune actually essentially karma, is it not also the case that modifiers which distinguish the abilities of one character as opposed to another based on character statistics or values must be karma adjustments on a fortune system?
To me, this part about modifiers overwhelming the "randomness" of the dice is an example of a broken mechanic. It's "fixed" in the D20 rules by have a roll of "1" being a fumble and a roll of "20" being a critical. The mechanic is "patched" with the critical fumble and critical success rules to handle modifiers (penalties or bonuses) which are in excess of the "randomness" of the D20. (Which, of course, leads to further problems involving large numbers of combatants.)
If one removes the Critical Fumble and Critical Success rules, then of course, the mechanic gives an effect which ranges from Fortune through to Karma with increasing modifier values, even though the mechanic (descriptor + modifiers + D20) is definitely Fortune all the time.
On 12/22/2002 at 5:55am, bluegargantua wrote:
RE: Blended Mechanics?
M. J. Young wrote:
Now, let us suppose we have a task of difficult 15--we'll say it's opening a specific lock. The mechanic tells us that we roll D20 and add bonuses, and must meet or beat the target number.
For the character with no skill, no bonuses at all, this is clearly a fortune system. He's got to roll fifteen or better--6 chances in 20, a 30% chance of success. Those odds are against him, although not phenomenally so.
But my character is wearing these guantlets of dexterity for +3, with an Ioun stone that give me another +1, and my high dexterity gives me +4, along with my gnomish locks bonus for +2, and my skill in locks for another +4--I've got +14 altogether. For me, this is no longer a fortune system; it is a karma system. I don't have to roll the dice, because (eliminating the automatic failure rule) I cannot fail to open this lock. I am, karmically speaking, better than the lock, and it will always open for me.
Kind of a side point here -- if I've got all these bonuses and modifiers and whatnot, then yeah, opening a Diff. 15 Lock will be no problem. However, a game in which all opponents/obstacles can be so handily beaten by the player, is a game which needs a better GM.
In a game like D&D as the charcter's level improves (and consequently, his skills and abilities improve), the level of challenge should rise by a corresponding amount. This is reflected in the game's Challenge Ratings and Encounter Level ideas. The Epic Level handbook will allow for ultra-high level characters to do flat-out impossible things (swim up a waterfall? No problem.). One of the side-effects of this is that things which were once impossible for you, now become almost routine.
A similiar example would be a 1st level Fighter taking on an Orc. Now, at 1st Level, this is going to be a real opponent for the Fighter. He's going to have to roll well in order to beat his opponent (he's very dependant on Fortune). By the time 4th Level rolls around, our Fighter will handily be able to dispatch an Orc in one round. In fact, he may be able to take on several Orcs at once (something he couldn't do earlier). However, unless there's a huge number of orcs attacking him, plain vanilla orcs are no longer a real threat or challenge. The game reflects this by making them worth less XP (until they become practically nil). So the GM will have to up the challenge, either by providing a tougher monster, adding class levels to an orc, or giving the orcs some sort of superior position or possession (ambush with a magic crossbow). Once that happens, the importance of Fortune comes back into the fore.
Basically, as long as there is a chance to succeed or fail, and that chance is based on a randomly generated result, then it's a Fortune system. The other stuff may result in certain actions become more certain (or even rendering certain actions automatic), but as long as there's a doubt that must be resolved by a die roll, then it's Fortune.
I can see how it's easy to slide into saying "It's a Fortune-based game with some Karma mixed in", but I don't think it reflects the reality of what actually happens over the long haul in these games.
later
Tom
On 12/22/2002 at 6:12am, Valamir wrote:
RE: Blended Mechanics?
That point is profound in its simplicity Tom. Well said.
A 10th level Fighter against a 1st level enemy might as well use a karmic system to adjucate the results for all the difference fortune will make. But what 10th level fighters ever get to face a 1st level enemy.
On 12/22/2002 at 3:53pm, Le Joueur wrote:
Well Said!
bluegargantua wrote: I can see how it's easy to slide into saying "It's a Fortune-based game with some Karma mixed in", but I don't think it reflects the reality of what actually happens over the long haul in these games.
Valamir wrote: That point is profound in its simplicity Tom. Well said.
A 10th level Fighter against a 1st level enemy might as well use a karmic system to adjucate the results for all the difference fortune will make. But what 10th level fighters ever get to face a 1st level enemy.
Exactly! Here we have an example of a game with a Fortune-based combat action resolution system and a Karma-based level system. The whole game is a collection of Drama, Fortune, and Karma mechanics blended together.
Here's how I see it: each combat action is largely decided by a Fortune mechanic. The Karma-based level mechanics can coopt this decision when elements of disparate levels are introduced (via a Drama mechanism, "So the GM will have to up the challenge").
Why does the whole system have to characterized by only one label? I stick to what Ron said about labelling single mechanics.
Fang Langford
On 12/23/2002 at 5:25am, bluegargantua wrote:
Re: Well Said!
Le Joueur wrote:
Why does the whole system have to characterized by only one label? I stick to what Ron said about labelling single mechanics.
Hmmm...by this reasoning, every game works via mechanic combinations of F/K/D with only a very few exceptions. I don't think that helps clarify matters any.
I think that a system will have a general or overarching category based on how crucial game decisions get made. In D&D, the Gamist reward system means that actions which were previously very important to the player will eventually become almost automatic. However, that very same Gamist approach means that those automatic actions are no longer important to the players -- they've got bigger fish to fry. And those fish, those actions, will have a chance to succeed or fail based on a random roll, the very heart of Fortune.
That's actually one of the things that I don't like about D&D -- it's very difficult to build a deep story sometimes because unless the opponents are leveling up along with the PCs, they eventually defeat them and move on. You could have this incredibly rich setting that centers on warring communities of gnomes and kobolds, but the PCs will quickly outstrip both of them in short order. In most D&D games, this inevitably leads to the discovery that the "bad side" is being bankrolled/supported by a more powerful group of monsters whom the PCs will now have to go fight. Of course, those monsters are being backed by yet another group and so on and so on and so on (ref. Against the Giants series).
I do think that different system mechanics can use different resolutions systems. But there's usually a core mechanic which will set the tone for the whole thing. In this case, the core mechanic is "roll a d20" -- and that sets it (and pretty much the whole game) firmly in Fortune territory.
later
Tom
On 12/23/2002 at 6:20am, Le Joueur wrote:
I Differ
bluegargantua wrote:Le Joueur wrote: Why does the whole system have to characterized by only one label? I stick to what Ron said about labelling single mechanics.
Hmmm...by this reasoning, every game works via mechanic combinations of F/K/D with only a very few exceptions. I don't think that helps clarify matters any.
I do. As a designer, if I'm having problems with a game and someone can say 'take out this Karma mechanic and the rest (mixed with Drama) will take care of it' helps me a lot more than 'it isn't Fortune enough.'
Could it be we are talking about two different uses for the terminology? I use it for design, 'thinking about adding stuff,' others use it to classify existing systems and don't care to specify the various 'organs' of system (the mechanics). That might explain why we're having this discussion.
What'll it be Mr. Young?
Fang Langford
On 12/23/2002 at 6:16pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Blended Mechanics?
Hello,
I think people are confounding two things: blended and combined.
The theory as it stands includes the concept of combining Karma, Fortune, and Drama in resolution systems. I give multiple examples in the essay and will do so at request, ad infinitum, for any system that people care to ask about that I'm familiar with. I'd venture to say that "one of the three" -only systems are rare to vanishing.
Therefore any perception that "Ron says a system can only be Karma, Drama, or Fortune" is mistaken. Hell, even the original System Does Matter essay is very clear about that.
However, blending as M.J. is suggesting applies to a single, isolated aspect of a resolution system - e.g. a single die roll and the numbers attending on it. That is something I suggest isn't a valid or useful concept, as long as we are talking about process.
I suggest as well that my breakdown by predictability handles the source of his objection without ambiguity.
TENSION
Now for this issue. Tension, or dramatic content, or enjoyable unpredictability, or whatever you'd like to call it, is essential to role-playing. It is the heart of Situation, one of the five fundamental aspects of the activity.
Dice are one way to generate it - either through Fortune-at-the-End methods as long as they don't stop play, or through Fortune-in-the-Middle methods.
Multiple authorities are another, which is why Universalis and Soap are way more fun with many players, all contributing as (in other games' terms) GMs in a trade-off manner.
Resource limitations are yet another, such as the pools of points used to amplify characters' actions in Nobilis, or "red zone" levels of hit points in D&D, or whatever.
Social interactions can generate the effect as well, as people communicate to one another their expectations or emotional reactions during play.
I think it's probably worth another thread to discuss this in detail, though. It really doesn't have anything to do with Fortune as a special property, or with blending vs. mixing among the DFK categories.
Best,
Ron
On 12/24/2002 at 7:09am, M. J. Young wrote:
How many mechanics?
At this moment, I'm getting critical database connection failure errors every time I try to post or even open another thread window; so I'm writing offline and hoping the site will reconnect by the time I'm done.
I want to thank Fang for clarifying the problem so astutely; yet I think that this may well be what we're arguing. I'll have to take a step back and recall the thread in which the original disagreement arose. Someone in that thread (which at this instant I can't access, but the link is in my original post) used "The Box" to attempt to illustrate a fortune mechanic. They suggested that the character would roll the dice, add modifiers, and compare it to a chart (if I recall correctly). I said that at the moment they were adding modifiers, they were stepping outside the bounds of a purely fortune mechanic; those modifiers, I maintained, were not fortune, but most likely karma, because they indicated the strengths of the character and so brought them into play. Ron disagreed with that; he maintained that this mechanic, as described, was a fortune mechanic, and that in essence there were no "blended" mechanics--every mechanic was of one distinct type.
Now, what Fang has elucidated is that we may be looking at multiple mechanics; I am not certain whether that is correct. I find the adjustments to be karma, even though the roll is fortune. If what Ron would say is on the order of there is one mechanic that adjusts the other, then we have been talking past each other; but it sounds like Ron is arguing that in sum this is a fortune mechanic, and therefore not at all a karma mechanic. I tend to see this as "the resolution mechanic", singular; but Fang is quite correct that it could be viewed as "the resolution mechanics" plural. Thus in Multiverser, resolution would include several mechanics which determined the numbers to be added and subtracted to reach the target number (most if not all of these karma-derived), and then an additional mechanic which involved rolling the dice to determine success, and one might argue a separate fortune mechanic that used the same roll to determine degree of success (that is, interpret the dice twice, once for hit and again for damage, although it's the same roll).
Fang is the first person to suggest that the karma element is a separate mechanic; and that approach makes sense, even though it's not how I would view it. That is, I see "add up these numbers and roll the dice, determining success and degree from the roll" as one mechanic containing a combination of fortune and karma elements; Fang would say that it divides into the karma mechanic of determining the target number and the separate mechanic of rolling the dice to determine the outcome. But it appears that Ron would say that because you're rolling the dice, it is not at all a karma mechanic but a fortune one.
The d20 arguments based on things I've allegedly overlooked don't really elucidate anything, I'm afraid. I eliminated the "1 Fumbles" rule quite specifically; I neglected the "20 Crit" rule (shame on me--as an old OAD&D hack, it's not part of the game, but I had heard of it, and we did have the "twenty always hits" rule). The point was to show that there could be a mechanic which did not contain those alleged safety valves, which went from being fortune to being karma without changing the nature of the mechanic itself. Talk of the referee not allowing the action of the player doesn't make the meaningless die roll is nonsense--particularly in the context of D20, in which the "take 10" and "take 20" rules already mean you don't have to roll under certain circumstances. If you want to be consistent about it, the "take 10" rule instantly changes this mechanic from fortune to karma, saying that your success or failure can be determined by whether your ability plus ten is sufficient, without the roll of a die. (But I'll concede that this could be considered a separate mechanic.)
It is also meaningless to argue that the DM shouldn't give the same difficulty tasks to characters of increasing difficulty. This only raises a rather foolish question: should the referee increase the difficulty of known tasks as the character advances? Let us suppose that during a tour of the castle, a young thief slips away from the group and stumbles on the treasury. Ah-hah! he thinks, an opportunity to enrich myself. He attempts the difficulty 25 lock, and fails. Three years later he sneaks into that same castle with a raiding party, and finds himself by that same door. Is the lock now difficulty 45? That's silly. It's the same lock. He opens it easily. The system I've outlined converts between fortune and karma as characters improve. In fact, the idea of more difficult tasks also shows this conversion of the same mechanic, since at low levels the character was prevented by karma from being able to do what they now have some chance by fortune to do, and eventually will be able to do automatically, again by karma. But a shifting mechanic and a blended mechanic aren't quite the same thing; I maintain that in every case in which a roll is made in this system, it is partly karma, because it is built on the bonuses the character has that make him as capable as he is.
But returning to Ron, he wrote: I don't get your point about Amber.
I believe that my point about Amber (a game I do not know well at all, having only seen it played once while I was running another game) is encapsulated in these words
which he wrote: Amber does permit some tweaking. If role-playing, prior to the conflict, had given Harvey an edge of some kind, then the GM might decree that Harvey can avoid most of the damage involved, or even, perhaps give Oswald an unexpected smack....As written, however, the system component for basic resolution is Karma, and the modifying (not over-riding) system component is Drama.
My point is that Amber has a Karma system with Drama modifiers, and thus a blended mechanic. You appear to be saying that if one player roleplays well, he may by drama (decision of the referee) be given a bonus which will apply to the otherwise karma (comparison of the scores) resolution of the confrontation. You might mean that the two aspects are entirely separate--that karma is unmodified and determines the outcome entirely based on scores, but that drama then gives some sort of comeback to the injured party as a separate mechanic--but when you say "karma modified by drama" it sounds like you mean exactly what I'm saying, that this is a mechanic in which drama is a factor in adjusting the outcome of a primarily karma mechanic. That is exactly the same concept I mean in regard to the original principle, that it represented karma (in the form of stat-based modifiers) being an adjustment on a primarily fortune mechanic.
Fang has elucidated that you could mean that those adjustments are a separate karma (or drama) mechanic not to be confused with the primary fortune (or karma) resolution of the outcome, while I mean that the entire matter has to be seen as one mechanic, in which the lesser aspect is present as a modifier to the greater.
Does this help resolve it?
--M. J. Young
On 12/24/2002 at 8:00am, Jack Spencer Jr wrote:
RE: Blended Mechanics?
Actually, taking a atep back, it looks to me like F/D/K has a form of hierarchy or layer to it. That is, all Fortune Mechanics has a form of Karma applied to it. At least in most cases I know of, because all characters have a form of differing scores to reflect the character's effectiveness, in whatever sense it is important to the situation and the game design. Karma is then just Fortune with the random generator stripped out. Does this make sense?
Can a case be made for Drama being Karma with the numerical feature removed?
On 12/24/2002 at 8:18am, Andrew Martin wrote:
Re: How many mechanics?
M. J. Young wrote: The point was to show that there could be a mechanic which did not contain those alleged safety valves, which went from being fortune to being karma without changing the nature of the mechanic itself.
The mechanic is still Fortune because of the roll of the dice. Eliminating the rules patches of criticals and fumbles, then adding massive modifiers that overwhelm the randomness of the D20 doesn't turn the mechanic into a Karma mechanic. It merely points out that the mechanic breaks down when the patch rules of criticals and fumbles are removed and massive modifiers in one direction (+ or -) are allowed.
M. J. Young wrote: Talk of the referee not allowing the action of the player doesn't make the meaningless die roll is nonsense--particularly in the context of D20, in which the "take 10" and "take 20" rules already mean you don't have to roll under certain circumstances. If you want to be consistent about it, the "take 10" rule instantly changes this mechanic from fortune to karma, saying that your success or failure can be determined by whether your ability plus ten is sufficient, without the roll of a die. (But I'll concede that this could be considered a separate mechanic.)
The Take 10 and Take 20 rules/mechanic are a separate Karma mechanic which overlays the Fortune mechanic. They are there as a patch rule to cover the problems related to multiple rolls for combat with small changes (in hit points) and the non-combat rolls which are "one shot" only and make big changes (searching for secret doors, picking locks, and so on). These rules covers the problems of Fortune being too random! which frequently deprotagonises skilled characters.
M. J. Young wrote: Talk of the referee not allowing the action of the player doesn't make the meaningless die roll is nonsense...
I did this in the AD&D games I ran as a GM, because of nonsense like, "my character is so skilled that I automatically detect all secret doors, and unlock them all at once!" This is a natural consquence when there's no critical results (1 or 20 on D20), and there's large modifiers, which make the D20 roll meaningless; so players naturally assume that actions become automatic and cost zero time or effort. Rolling the dice (even when meaningless!) keeps characters and players in synch in time, so preventing abuse in the time dimension where a character does far more than other characters.
I'm not trying to be offensive, I don't see what the point of this kind of "sophistry" is?
On 12/24/2002 at 8:21am, Andrew Martin wrote:
RE: Blended Mechanics?
Jack Spencer Jr wrote: Can a case be made for Drama being Karma with the numerical feature removed?
Sure! After all, take away the numbers from a Karma mechanic and then they're no longer Karma. :)
Alice's Strength: 100 versus Bob's Strength: 50 in a arm wrestling match.
-- Alice wins!
Alice's Strength versus Bob's Strength in a arm wrestling match.
-- Alice wins! (or maybe Bob wins! or they both break their arms! or whatever!)
On 12/24/2002 at 7:27pm, Andrew Martin wrote:
RE: Blended Mechanics?
Andrew Martin wrote:Jack Spencer Jr wrote: Can a case be made for Drama being Karma with the numerical feature removed?
Sure! After all, take away the numbers from a Karma mechanic and then they're no longer Karma. :)
Take away the dice from a Fortune mechanic and now it's a Karma mechanic.
Take away the numbers from a Karma mechanic and now it's a Drama mechanic.
Take the drama away from a Drama mechanic and now it's no longer a mechanic at all! :)
On 12/24/2002 at 7:41pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Blended Mechanics?
Hi M.J.,
I'm beginning to think that we are differing on the very basics of blending vs. mixing. Your perception of the Amber description puzzles the hell out of me. I'm using it to show that resolution component X is (a) primary and (b) Karma-based, and that resolution component Y is (b) secondary and (c) Drama-based. This is a DFK-mixed system, as most systems are.
I don't think it has anything to do with blending in the sense of your interpretation of dice rolls modified by fixed-numbers. There are two acts in the Amber example, and which is being employed is very clear in play that matches the text (not all Amber play does), as well as which constitutes the "primary" and which constitutes the "tweaker."
The dice example isn't any such thing: you have a (say) 3d6 roll, and the attribute (or whatever) provides the foundation for the randomized addition. One can't play with either the dice roll alone or the attribute/modifier alone; there is no primary and no secondary, just a single Fortune mechanic operating according to system-derived parameters.
Andrew & Jack, I agree with that hierarchical presentation; it makes a lot of sense.
Best,
Ron