The Forge Archives

Okay, so I'm slow to pick up new things. I know it. But I keep banging my head into the topic until it finally sinks in. Right now, I'm still stuck thinking about the categories of resolution mechanics.

Here's my problem. I love having the language and framework of Drama, Fortune, and Karma as stated by Jonathan Tweet and clarified/modified/refined by Ron Edwards. But I don't think they are enough.

I discussed this at Dreamation 2005 with Vincent Baker, and the upshot of that discussion was that there is no real difference between the resolution mechanics. I went off and thought about it, then forgot about it, then remembered it (probably misremembered it), and went "no way!"

Now, Vincent, if I've completely misinterpreted what we discussed that day, please say so. But it seemed that what you were saying is that Drama, Fortune, Karma, Skill, whatever all amount to the same thing. I certainly agree in the sense that they are all methods for agreement. But that still doesn't give us useful categories of those means, which is what I'm interested in. It's one thing to say cars, trains, boats, planes, bicycles, etc. are all methods of transportation. Obviously, they are. But that doesn't help me when I want to know which category a bobsled falls under.

So, here's my question. Are there other resolution mechanics than just Drama, Fortune, Karma? My thought is yes. Just looking at boffer LARPs makes that pretty clear to me. My next question is related: Assuming there are other categories of resolution mechanics, what are they?

Currently, we have:[/u]
Drama: Statement as a mechanic ("You jump over the pit.")
Fortune: Randomizing factor as a mechanic ("You rolled a ten, you jump over the pit.")
Karma: Comparative scores as a mechanic ("You have Jumping 10 and the pit is a challenge of 8, you jump over the pit.")

Hmm, the LARP boffer example would suggest another type of resolution, however, if we take that as a Skill resolution, then does the fact that player skill factors into many game systems (especially wargamey combat systems) mean that they are Skill resolution, not Drama, Fortune, or Karma?

That suggests to me that the use of boffer combat in a LARP is probably Drama, Fortune, or Karma depending on how the results of actually landing a blow are determined, I would guess they are most often Karma.

Frank

What I tried to say at Dreamation was:

RPGs' rules coordinate three things. 1) The imaginary events and stuff we're talking about. 2) Real-world things like die rolls and numbers and words on a character sheet and pennies and shot glasses and boffer swords. 3) Our interactions.

Drama is interesting because Drama rules don't refer to any real-world cues. We don't look at numbers or words or die rolls; Drama rules coordinate just our interactions and the made-up stuff.

Karma and Fortune are interesting because Karma and Fortune rules do refer to real-world cues. We consider numbers, words or die rolls in making our decisions about the made-up stuff, and we consider the made-up stuff in making our decisions about our numbers, words and die rolls.

Karma and Fortune are the same as each other, however, in that they both refer to real-world things, and I don't consider the difference between comparing the numbers on two dice and comparing the numbers on two character sheets (eg) to be an interesting one. I'm far more interested in the decisions we get to make about those numbers.

Skill-based rules, like "whoever can pitch the penny closer to the shot glass, that person's character wins the fight" - they're the same as Karma and Fortune as far as I can tell: they coordinate our decisions about the made-up stuff with some real-world stuff. Are they part of Karma, part of Fortune, or their own thing? Who cares. What sorts of decisions do we get to make about them?

-Vincent

Ahh, right, that's it. Thanks for refreshing my memory, Vincent. Now, let me make sure I understand you. My impression is that you are still categorizing resolution systems, but instead of the DFK breakdown, you feel that a more useful division is between resolution mechanics that reference the real world and those that don't. Further, that breaking them down beyond that distinction is meaningless, or at least significantly less valuable than other concerns. Right?

I don't agree with that idea at all, but I want to make sure that's what you are saying before I go on.

Quote from: AndrewFurther, that breaking them down beyond that distinction is meaningless, or at least significantly less valuable than other concerns. Right?

Not really, unless by "other concerns" you mean this:

Breaking them down into resource, effectiveness, positioning, reward is very valuable. Breaking them down into IIEE, into itM or atE, into puts-the-player-into-Director-stance is very valuable. But that means, once we've established how a given rule coordinates real-world stuff, our interactions and made-up stuff, we examine what purpose it serves in making the game happen. Asking ourselves whether it's Karma, Fortune or what is pointless, when we can ask ourselves instead what it does and how it works.

-Vincent

QuoteAsking ourselves whether it's Karma, Fortune or what is pointless,

I'm tempted to quibble about "pointless".  Are you really saying that worrying about whether to use Karma, Fortune, or Drama before deciding "what it does and how it works" is pointless?  ...not that the eventual KFD decision itself is pointless...provided you've got the rest nailed down.  In otherwords, a question of priority.

Is that accurate?

Okay, what? I mean, I can look at the box in front of me and say, "Well, asking myself whether this is a computer or toaster is pointless, I should just  ask myself instead what it does and how it works." Then I can take it apart, realize it has no ability to convert bread into toast, and instead performs a series of simple mathematical calculations at an astounding speed, which allows manipulation of data in a useful fashion for a variety of activities, including word processing, graphic design, communication, etc. Or, instead, I can just categorize it as a computer so I don't have to explain all that (and much more, really!) every time I want to reference it.

That's the core of what I'm talking about here -- creating useful terminology. The method by which we break down and classify the resolution mechanics is a separate, but important, issue. And perhaps that should be addressed first -- figure out what the meaningful divisions are, then classify and codify them.

From my point of view, Drama, Fortune, and Karma (and any others that are similar, but cover other possibilities) are more useful, simply because they are intuitive and easy to grasp, and thus have more practical value to me as I work on game design. I'm certainly open to other possibilities, though. But I'd rather have a workable but imperfect system than a logically perfect, but unwieldy system.

Are we talking here about rules that already exist and we're analyzing them, or rules that don't exist yet and we're designing them?

edit: On reflection, both, obviously. My answer's the same either way. Give me a minute.

-Vincent

Hi Vincent -

I agree with the way you're carving things up here, that the more important distinction is that between Drama and everything else.

I think saying the other distinctions are meaningless/unimportant is going to lead to pointless fights though. What you want to emphasize, from a rhetorical point of view, is just that there's this way of carving things up at a more general level that actually makes more of a difference for play and design than this other level we get stuck talking about a lot.

I do agree that the difference between Fortune and Karma, and consequently between dice and diceless, is overrated in importance. On the other hand, I think that what we're here calling 'skill' resolution - where you make an imaginary event depend on a real-world contest between players, or real-world knowledge or problem-solving skills - is actually interestingly different from Fortune and Karma even if it falls into the same broad category at the highest level.

Best,

Sean

Quote from: ffilzdoes the fact that player skill factors into many game systems (especially wargamey combat systems) mean that they are Skill resolution, not Drama, Fortune, or Karma?

Off the top of my head, Frank, I'd say no. Some crossover is to be expected between systems. Just because there might be some skill (lowercase on purpose) in, say, a Fortune mechanic doesn't make it Skill rather than Fortune. We can easily turn this around and point out that luck plays a part in Skill mechanics as well, but that alone wouldn't mean that they were actually Fortune.

Consider all the possible real-world things that an RPG's rules might refer to.

Why is random vs. non-random a better way to divvy them up than numerical vs. non-numerical, for instance?

Obviously they can be random numerical, non-random numerical, random non-numerical, or non-random non-numerical. Are rolling a die (random numerical) and pulling a written outcome out of a hat (random non-numerical) really more alike than rolling a die (random numerical) and comparing STR stats (non-random numerical)?

Why is "non-random" good enough, when we have both constant non-randoms and changing non-randoms? Isn't spending a point (changing non-random) as different from comparing STR stats (constant non-random) as rolling a die (random)?

The answer is, it doesn't matter. I say "here are Dogs in the Vineyard's resolution rules." You say "those rules are Fortune rules." Or else you say "those rules are Fortune-Number-Text-Deterministic-Expenditure-Skill rules, plus Fortune-Text-Deterministic-Accretion rules." Either way, I say, "oh."

-Vincent

Quote from: lumpleyAre rolling a die (random numerical) and pulling a written outcome out of a hat (random non-numerical) really more alike than rolling a die (random numerical) and comparing STR stats (non-random numerical)?

Err...yeah. Pretty clearly more similar, to me, at least.

Quote from: lumpleyWhy is random vs. non-random a better way to divvy them up than numerical vs. non-numerical, for instance?

I'm not saying that it is (though now that you painted the example above, I might start thinking that it is).

Quote from: lumpleyIsn't spending a point (changing non-random) as different from comparing STR stats (constant non-random) as rolling a die (random)?

Uhm...no. Spending a point seems far more similar to comparing STR stats than it does to rolling a die. Again, this seems pretty clear to me -- some things are "obviously" more similar to others. Of course, what's obvious to me might not be at all obvious to someone else, and vice-versa.

Quote from: lumplyThe answer is, it doesn't matter. I say "here are Dogs in the Vineyard's resolution rules." You say "those rules are Fortune rules." Or else you say "those rules are Fortune-Number-Text-Deterministic-Expenditure-Skill rules, plus Fortune-Text-Deterministic-Accretion rules." Either way, I say, "oh."

Well, I agree that it doesn't matter when you present the rules to the player. But I still feel that it most certainly does matter when you are designing the rules in the first place. As another example, I could design a new computer and say, "Here's how it works -- it's faster than other computers." You say, "Neat." And no discussion about the system architecture that allows the enhanced speed is required or even beneficial. However, if I'm working out the architecture with some other nerds, I'd rather be able to talk about the details and be immediately understood, because we are talking in the same framework of specialised language. I'd also want to be able to discuss all the components of it's design using the specialised language, instead of having to explain each component's function.

Ok...I'll see your "oh", and raise you a "hmmm"

I think the difference between DFK is primarily interesting because of the different effect each has on the social dynamic at the table.  If one accepts that the game play experience of a given session is driven as much by social dynamic as anything (which I think we all do here) then I find it interesting to explore how we can engineer different game play experiences by using rules to alter the social dynamic.

I think D F K each effect the social dynamic in different ways.  

As a superficial starter consider:

Fortune:  provides the opportunity to "appeal to a higher power" (aka Fate).  The presence of Fortune mechanics permits an individual to abdicate having to make a decision (yes that succeeds / no it fails) to a third party.  That third party being "fate" who is represented at the table by the dice (cards/whatever).  Since it is a third party the appeal takes on the weight of an outside arbitrator, and since "fate" isn't a real human being to be argued with or bribed "objectivity" can be claimed.  "Make a Test Roll" is a way for a player to wash their hands of the situation and claim they can't be held accountable for the result.  For the record, I consider this to be a good thing in most cases (I'm a fan of Fortune mechanics) because it alleviates some of the performance pressures that otherwise might lead to paralysis at the table.  When decisions get too hot you can punt...and as any fan of real football knows...having the ability to punt is a good thing.

Karma:  I find Karma as implimented to be more akin to Drama resolution than Fortune.  While its true that both can involve comparing numbers to see which is higher, in practice Karma is rarely that simple.  Usually there is a great deal of interpretation that goes into deciding which numbers to compare and when (See any session of Amber).  That interpretation is pretty much identical to Drama interpretation with some added constraints.  On the one hand, as Robert Frost would recognize, those constraints can serve as spring boards for creativity and thus actually wind up with "better" narration than Drama alone.  Looked at another way, however, the presence of Karma mechanics represents a degree of mistrust of Drama alone.  One can't simply let someone say anything they want constrained only by their willingness to abide by the social contract.  One has to impose limits on that control and using Karma to guide the direction of narration can thus be seen as being primarily a way to restrict wayward narration.  


Drama: is narration ability without mechanical restriction.  The only limiting factors are peer pressure, the desire for accolades from fellow players for the job you do, and a variety of ulterior social motives (like getting laid).  There is no ability to punt.  There is no way to blame "bad things" on anyone but your own desire to see those bad things happen.  And there are no Karmic mechanical limits on what bad things (or good for that matter) you can do.  Drama resolution requires the greatest amount of mutal trust and respect among participants of any of the three.  You can limp along without trust and respect in a fortune game by simply punting everything to the "neutral objective arbitrator".  You can't take a single step with out trust and respect in a Drama game.


For me then, the greatest fascination comes from where and when these different elements get mixxed and matched within a single game.  Which elements did the game designer leave up to the trust and respect of individuals with Drama mechanics.  Which elements did the game designer leave mostly up to the trust and respect of individuals but added some limits to their authority with Karma mechanics.  Which elements did the game designer feel he needed to give the players the ability to punt the decision out to a Fortune mechanic.  Which elements did the game designer assume right from square one that would nearly ALWAYS need to be punted out to Fortune.

D&D is a perfect example of this in action.  The game designer completely trusts the DM to use 100% Drama resolution to determine which monster is behind the door and whether or not it will try to bite you.  The DM has almost no ability to pass the buck and must take full blame for placing an encounter the party can't handle.  But the designer doesn't trust the DM to determine whether the bite was successful or how much damage it does.  Or put another way, the designer doesn't require the DM to take sole responsibility for whether the monster kills the party.  The DM can punt to the dice and allow the random rolls to decide.

We then see in AD&D especially the rise of random encounter tables and wandering monsters based on dungeon level...giving the DM the ability to punt those decisions as well.  And in 3E we see the rise of Challenge Ratings as a way of bringing Karma limits to the DM's ability to create encounters.


I think there's an awful lot of the game experience at the table that can be customized and engineered based on how, when, and where we decide to use Drama, Fortune, or Karma mechanics in a game.  They have far to big of an impact on social dynamic at a game table for me to consider them pointless.  

They must be understood within the context of "what they do and how they do it" absolutely.  But once that context is known there's a big difference in the experience of play as it happens at the table...the overall game ambiance...between "Roll to Hit" and "Ok, I say you hit him".

Quote from: RalphThey must be understood within the context of "what they do and how they do it" absolutely. But once that context is known there's a big difference in the experience of play as it happens at the table...

Okay. I kind of thought I'd been saying that, but clearly I haven't been. And reading back through what I wrote, really, clearly I haven't been!

I'm not saying that the details of the rules don't matter. Lord no!

I'm saying that how we categorize the rules doesn't matter.

Dogs' rules' dice and how you treat them, the words and numbers on its character sheet and how you treat them, exactly what you're talking about, Ralph - that's what makes the experience of play at the table.

Whether we define categories such that Dogs' rules fall into one, or another, or a third - that doesn't touch the experience of play at the table in any way. Define whatever and however many categories you want, Dogs' rules will do what they do.

-Vincent

I'm sorry that this thread came to be about my opinion!

I've clarified what I said to Andrew at Dreamation; I'm all set.

Please go forward with the kinds of rules that DFK does or doesn't fully account for.

-Vincent