The Forge Archives

Yes, I'm aware that most (all) resolution mechanics in games are some combination of Drama, Fortune and Karma as they're defined here on the Forge.  What I'm looking for are some examples of resolution mechanics where Drama is the primary means of resolution, rather than just the support for something that's either Karma or Fortune (or both).  Preferably "hard" mechanics, something at the rule level rather than the System level.

Right now Drama feels like the redheaded stepchild of the trilogy in my eyes.  I can't imagine a Drama-primary resolution system that DOESN'T feel like a fancy way of waving one's hands (see: Amber for a big example, at least in how the fans describe it - and even there it looks more like a subjective Karma system) but from what I hear, there's this game called 'primeval' that has one (can't find the rules).  I've done searches, without much success (except the game name primeval) but perhaps I just don't know the right combination of terms to search from.

I'm thinking, and hoping, that this is a limitation in my current horizons of thought rather than in Drama as a concept, and am hoping that there's someone(s) out there who can give more concrete examples of what a drama-primary game mechanic could look like without giving the 'waving ones hands' feel.  Either examples from extant games, or maybe theoretical sketches.

Or, alternatively, is the existence of a 'hard' drama mechanic (or any drama-primary resolution mechanic) simply theoretical at this point, like the 'top' quark was for so many decades in quantum mechanics?

Tree's Heart Dynasty has a very clear Drama mechanic, with a Fortune component.

To summarize:
* The PC has a stat called Pain, which ranges from 0 to 20.
* Any time the PC is opposed in some substantial way, the GM secretly chooses a number between 0 and 3.
* The GM should roll 4d6, and if the total is less than the PC's Pain, he adds one to the number he secretly chose (this doesn't bump the number past 3).
* The GM's number is the amount of times that the opposition will hinder the PC's progress if he tries significantly to do whatever he was trying.
* The first two times the opposition obstructs, the PC may choose to persist. If he does so, he is committing himself to the contest; he cannot persist and then walk away without succeeding or something bad happening.
* If the opposition's number is 3, that means that it will choose mutual extremity - something very bad happening to both parties - over the PC's success. Mutual extremity will often incur Pain points for the PC; usually 1, 2 in very rare cases.

Whenever a game uses plot point type mechanics ("hero points" in HeroQuest for example), that's Drama.  

Theatrix is a system that uses drama quite a bit.  Here's a thread from some time ago where Paul Czege discussed the shortcomings of using this type of Drama for conflict resolution: Drama like cold feet underneath my covers
From a post in this thread:

Quote from: RonI may be over-stating the situation for Theatrix, but I know I am NOT over-stating it for The Window, which I think suffers very badly from this problem. In general, it strikes me that Drama mechanics for players and GM alike benefit from both Resource mechanics and specific statement-practices. Puppetland is the best example I can think of, with its strict rules for exactly how actions are articulated. Pantheon, which I think has very different goals/priorities from Puppetland, also organizes its Drama mechanics using beads and turn-priorities.

There's a few more little red-heads for ya.  
--Em

Quote from: LxndrRight now Drama feels like the redheaded stepchild of the trilogy in my eyes.  I can't imagine a Drama-primary resolution system that DOESN'T feel like a fancy way of waving one's hands ...

For me drama systems such as Amber are all about narative costs. As a referee I look at the situation and imagine what the 'neutral' outcome is most likely to be. Assuming llittle to no creativity from the NPCs and PCs present, what is the most likely outcome? The next step is to determine how much effort it's going to take to change that outcome.

Once yopu've narrated the situation, the players will start narrating their character's behaviour. What resources are they using to help them overcome the challenge in this encounter? Are they using time  to prepare themselves? Are they using sensory abilities to gain extra information about their opponents? Are they drawing on their knowledge, experience or intuition abilities to come up with a good plan? These are all resources they can draw on to help them succeed. In the end it all comes down to how much resource expenditure it's going to take to overcome the challenge. Note that many such resources are renewable or re-usable (such as knowledge, re-usable equipment) and some are not (time, drawing on favours, using up non-reusable equipment). Another resource might be patience, if you're trying to get past a guard standing wats, perhaps you could try waiting untill he nods off a bit or looks the other way.

Some (mostly diced) systems have strict game mechanics for this, with modifiers for different resources such as abilities and equipment. In Amber you have ability ratings and ratings for some equipment and stuff such as allies or some magic but the rest is fairly free-form. A pure drama system doesn't allocate values to any of this stuff, instead the referee judges how significant a given factor will be under the specific circumstances. Rather than juist apply random factors to the enumerated factors, all factors are evaluated by the referee. How you do that might vary a lot. You might assign numeric values to all the factors you think are significant and sum them, or you might just 'go with the flow' and evaluate it by 'feel'. I suppose there are many ways you might approach it.


Simon Hibbs

Primeval is hard to find info on because it was never published, and only playtested by a few people, myself included. It was the brainchild of Tom Back, and it was definitely interesting. Essentially, the rules were that when there was a conflict, and I mean a conflict in the truely grandiose sense of the term (only like three per game), each player took turns describing how his hero overcame the conflict. Then the GM judged the results following several criteria. For example, one of them was called, IIRC, honor, which meant that the description had to make the other PCs look good too - just not as good as the hero that the player represented.

A neat mechanic was that each "class," basically an archetype, had it's own speical mechanic that dealt with how they were incentivized to narrate. The most memorable example, was the "Hyborian" (or was it "Hyperborean"?) character type, instead of honoring the other PCs and the task at hand, had to denigrate everything, and make it all seem like it was of no consequence to a hero as great as his.

This leads to a story that I repeat a lot, forgive me if you've read it: in the game I played, the Hyborian player, upon his hero discovering that the foe we were up against in the final conflict was a giant scorpion machine driven by people from some strange land, commented that he was so thoroughly dissapointed that it was his fate to have to build his legend having only "mortals" to fight, that he took his sword, cut off is own arm, and then used his severed arm as his only weapon to defeat his foes. This being the only way he felt that he could bring himself down to the level of the challenge in question. He got maximum points for the honor category.

An inspiring moment, to be sure. But I think that mechanics like this are potentially "dangerous" because they can cause things to go beyond fun to just odd. That is, they have to be crafted carefully in order that they don't end up creating parodies of themselves.

A reverse of this method (and more "normal") would be to have the GM be forced to take certain player actions as parameters that he'd have to consider in his narration for resolution. This happens in many games now on small scales. If a character uses a sword, obviously the GM won't say he hit his opponent with a wet noodle. But what if a player who used his father's sword always won, but triggered a death amongst the PCs. I mean, there's a lot of ground that could be covered here.

Mike

Hmmm, could someone point me at threads or essays that explain what the exact difference between Drama and Karma is, in the way it's usually used here, as opposed to the Everway sense, where I first encountered it? Yeah, I'm asking to be spammed with links, but I think it's relevant to this discussion. I'm getting no love from the search engine.

It's meant to be precisely the same as the Everway essay definitions.

Fortune - random elements resolve events
Karma - comparison of elements resolves events
Drama - participant feelings about dramatic appropriateness resolves events

See the new Glossary for more definitions: http://indie-rpgs.com/_articles/glossary.html

Mike

Quote from: Mike Holmes*snip*

Drama - participant feelings about dramatic appropriateness resolves events

See the new Glossary for more definitions: ...

QuoteDrama

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.

Hmm... To answer Alexander's question about 'hard' drama, I don't think that's really possible. Is it? It basically involves resolving without reference to any numerical values or character sheets. How do you make that 'hard?'

Hiya,

By "hard" Drama, I think Alexander's talking about what I like to call "structured" Drama - it still follows rules about how things are brought into play beyond "I just say."

In Puppetland, it has a lot to do with in-character vs. out-of-character dialogue as well as the tenses used. These are highly constrained, in different ways for players and GM, and the net effect is quite functional. In Pantheon, it has a lot to do with resource allocation - how much you can put into play and how that gets negotiated or cancelled, based on spending tokens. Universalis uses a less competitive version of the same idea for a lot of its content, although not for conflict resolution.

My proto-game Zero at the Bone is another example that I'd really like to try some time. Although action resolution is fully Drama, its IIEE (who says what when, and which characters do what when) is set through Fortune.

Best,
Ron

I feel that most "hard" drama mechanics come through "endgame" or swan song mechanics of a game system.  Rather than rely upon dramatic moments pulling the game through slower moments, I think that most designers are reluctant to leave what they perceive as "important matters" (namely, moving the game to the next clue or moment) to the creativity of a single entity (consumer public).  Therefore, I think that most games are only willing to relinquish that control at the end, when, from a game's perspective "it doesn't matter anymore".  

I say that last bit because, while it may be important to the participants, the game itself, as a mechanical machine, has run its course and there is little or nothing left for it to process through.

Of course, all of this is focused through the lens of "traditional" RPG design, and largely does not apply to what, in my mind, constitutes a "Good Game", but it is prevalent in many older games, or more heavily marketed games featuring some form of dramatic component.  

Dav

sorry, wanted to mention:  I don't necessarily disagree with drama seeing a relatively minor role, comparitively speaking to Karma or Fortune.  In fact, I tend to enjoy a certain degree of Fortune in standard combative (not combat, necessarily, mind you) resolution.  This, of course, is mainly due my need for what I plant in my head as the Stake and the Gamble.  I find that drama systems work well to establish set guidelines (such as in Violence Future, where the Endgame mechanic insures a certain degree of climactic endings and a sense of finality.  But, I feel that the idea of "live by the sword, die by the sword" or really any poetic justice is an inherent aspect of a Good Story).

Okay, to answer the good points brought up in this thread:

1.  Tree's Heart Dynasty seems to me to be Karma-primary, not Drama-primary.  After all, the GM chooses a number and then (in typical Karma fashion) compares the PC's actions to that number in a very Karma-oriented fashion (beyond the Pain roll, which is Fortune).  The number compared is just "number of times the PC chooses to try" rather than a particular stat.  Shreyas (or anyone else who's read the text), am I missing something?  Where does the Drama outweigh the Karma (the Fortune is obviously submissive in this picture)?

2.  Emily, can you explain more on Hero Points in HQ, and how they're used as a Drama-primary *resolution* mechanic (I've only played the game in a one-shot where Hero Points didn't wind up getting used at all)?  I was under the impression that HQ's Hero Points manifested secondary to the Fortune roll, but I'm no expert in that game.

Also, thanks for the quote from that thread that I missed (I'll also check out Pantheon and Puppetland, which were mentioned both in that quote, and by Ron in this thread), along with the link to it (a thread I missed in my search).  

3.  Mike, thanks for the description of Primeval's resolution.  Sounds cool, and no I hadn't heard (or read) the story before.  

4.  Jack - Ron's pretty much on the target about what I mean by "hard" Drama - I do mean Drama that has some firm underpinning of hard rules beneath it at the game mechanic level (wherever in the Venn diagram that falls) instead of the System/Social Contract Level (simon's post in this thread shows how little underpinning Amber has, as the most common Drama resolution I can think of - it's pretty much "Gm's call" without limit).

5.  Ron - thanks first for helping to clarify "hard Drama" as well as your examples.  I've paged through ZatB and it looks interesting enough to try out at least once, although the almost ENTIRE lack of numbers (barring the cards) makes me somewhat nervous (a little neurosis on my part, I suspect).  We'll see if that crops into actual play.

Anyway, thanks for the elucidation.

I think I'm not getting the distinction between Karma and other game systems. If Karma means basing the outcome only on the character's fixed ability scores, I don't know of any system in existence that does that. Amber is often refered to as a Karma system because fixed ability scores are used to establish the character's initial possition on the success/failiure scale, but actual resolution is determined dramaticaly.

How is this different from a diced game in which the characters have fixed ability scores, which establish their likely possition on the success/failiure scale, but then dice (or whatever) are used to actualy resolve the final outcome? In both cases the characters have fixed scores in their abilities. The only difference is in how situational factors are taken into account. In diced games this is usualy through a combination of modifiers and dice rolls, while in Amber it's through drama, but both types of system take Karma into account to equal degrees so far as I can see. Calling one Karmic and the other not seems very arbitrary.


Simon Hibbs

OK, back to the drawing board. The "problems" the everyone is having here were touched on above. Few, if any resolution systems are completly one or the other DFK. They almost all are part one, and part another. One step is random, and the other a comparison. One step is drama, and another random. Or more involved combinations.

Thus, yes, Amber is Karma that can move to Drama. MLWM endgame uses Karma to determine a category of endgame, but then leaves it to the player to use Drama to decide precisely what happens inside of those parameters. And most games have moments where abilities are compared to random rolls, which wavers between karma and fortune depending on a number of variables.

But just to give the standard examples:

Karma - in Hero System if you have 10 STR, you can lift 100 KG. If the player comes to a 50 KG rock, and his character has 10 STR, and he says, "I try to lift the rock," the GM does a simple comparison and says, "You do." People don't think of this as resolution because it's not random. But then that's the point, isn't it. Resolution systems decide what does, or does not happen in game.

Fortune - OD&D initiative. Roll 1d6, highest goes first. No modifiers. Nothing but fortune. Again, people think that's only part of resolution - what can I say, where does resolution begin, and where does it end?

Drama - the GM decides that it would be cool if Bob's character just happened to arrive just now. Drama is used to resolve what happens in game all of the time, and people just don't think about it. Because, again, this isn't one of those "does he/doesn't he" task resolutions. But it's still a method of determining what happens in game. Note how he could roll if he felt like it, or check the time of day and compare to a timeline...

Hopefully this clarifies soom of the issues?

Mike

Why not do this.  The GM/referee writes down 6 words or phrases when a conflict arises.  Three of these words or phrases are positives, meaning if a player mentions them in their description of an outcome they get 'points' towards their outcome being the true outcome.  These 3 words or phrases should be written in order of most important to least important.  Give them numbers like 1, 2, 3.  The second list is things that the GM/referee definately does not want to see.  They are written in order of worst to mildly undesireable (rank them -3, -2, -1).  For each person's descriptions, put a check by anything used and total up the scores.  In the event of a tie, GM/referee chooses.  Word lists can be very close to the situation at hand like (5 rats, hammer, bow ties for positives) (jigsaw puzzle, mirror, splattering blood for negatives)  Or they could be over the entire story as a secondary determiner such as (Nihilism, Cooperation, being John Malkovich).  In this way, attempts to move in a particular direction support a general theme.

Just a thought, perhaps not as in depth as others.

JOE--

Hi, Mike. I think your last post is great. It also points to something interesting: we often think of 'the' core resolution system as the one which does the most work in the game (Amber's Karma, D&D's combat-Fortune), but in fact few games resolve everything the same way.

One interesting question about a system is: what do you revert to when resolution is not obvious? I think of widely adopted expedients like the GM's drama-based "it would be cool if that happened now, let's put it in the adventure", or the widely adopted OD&D/AD&D house rule of rolling d20 under the most relevant stat when one needed resolution for a 'skill-based' task attempt that was not covered by the rules.

Speaking of house rules, you wrote:

"Fortune - OD&D initiative. Roll 1d6, highest goes first. No modifiers. Nothing but fortune. Again, people think that's only part of resolution - what can I say, where does resolution begin, and where does it end?"

I actually learned to play OD&D with this rule, but it is not in the books.

Men and Magic (p. 11), as well as the J. Eric Holmes edited 'blue book 'basic'' boxed set, actually have strict Karma-based initiative: start with highest dexterity and count down.

In AD&D, you roll a d6 for both sides, but monsters and high and low dexterities get bonuses/penalties, and certain combinations of rolls produce surprise.

I often find it astonishing to remember the games I played and to go back to D&D rulebooks of various editions. The rules I was playing by only in certain cases mirrored what was in those books at all. Some of this I can blame on 3rd party D&D products and Dragon magazine, but a lot of it is just weird oral lore I picked up from other gamers, going back to who knows what?