Fortune, Karma, Drama

There are three basic ways to mechanically resolve disputes or uncertainties in RPGs - commonly termed Fortune, Karma, and Drama.

## Fortune

Chance, randomness, unpredictability

By far the most well-known, and most widely used resolution mechanics use Fortune as their basic principle. In the vast majority of RPGs this is achieved by the use of dice, although some games use cards, blindly-drawn tokens with various symbols, a simple coin-toss, or any other artefact that can be used to produce a random outcome (within a certain, knowable and computable, range of possible outcomes) fairly quickly and simply.

Fortune-based game mechanics aim to produce uncertainty, tension, the courageous decision to trust in blind luck, and the catharsis of a lucky dice roll in just the right situation.

Examples:

* D&D's roll of 1D20+skill+variousBoni+whatever vs. a Difficulty of (mostly) somewhere between 10 and 45...
* WoD's pools of D10s built from attribute+ability (or some other combo of two stats), where each dice is compared against a difficulty of (mostly) somewhere between 4 and 9...
* Dust Devils' use of a set of poker cards to resolve mechanical conflicts...
* Star Wars - Edge of Empire's unique special dice (basically D6's, but with odd and whimsical symbols instead of numbers on them)...
* The Clay That Woke's unique special tokens, showing one custom-designed symbol each, drawn from a bowl and able to be held or spent by the player in various combinations...

## Karma

Fixed values, predictability, reliable player influence

Less common than Fortune-based systems, fully Karma-based game mechanics don't do any dice rolls, card draws, or other randomizers. Instead, they simply compare values: Do you have a Swordsmanship skill of 8, and your opponent has one of 7? Barring any modifiers, you will win that fight. Yes, every time (although modifiers for circumstances, wounds, and other conditions may vary of course, potentially leading to different outcomes after all.)

Karma-based mechanics aim to produce reliability, confidence in the characters' abilities, and predictable results, often in the name of a "realistic" (believable, convincing) depiction of the game's setting.

They also often have the pleasant side-effect of shortening a system's handling time when it comes to resolving complex situations (such as combat tends to be) during the game itself. No more need to count out and collect dice, roll them, check every single number against a GM-set difficulty, add up the successes, then check against the rules for whatever system just got used in this way to find out what those X successes actually mean, here. Just compare scores, add in a few modifiers, and you got your result.

Examples:

*[note to self: check out examples of full-Karma games, I know there are a couple, but can't remember any off the top of my head right now]*

 .

### Hybrid Forms I - A Shot of Karma in your Fortune, Anyone?

As we have seen, games designed fully around the idea of Karma are relatively few and far between - but that does not mean the idea sees as little use as this observation in itself would suggest. There are many Fortune-based game systems that use at least one or two little elements of Karma in their mechanics.

Examples:

WoD's rules for **Spending Willpower** - when giving away one point of Willpower (of which you will mostly have a starting value somewhere between 4 and 8, presumably) right before you make any given roll in the game, you may turn that WP point into an automatic success for that roll. Therefore, a player with, say, 6 Willpower points on his sheet can reliably know that they will have the option to gain a "free" automatic success six times during the oncoming game. (Procided that they don't spend these points for something else first, and restricted to this precise number only until WP are eventually regained at some point during the game.) All this provides a healthy dose of predictability and reliability for players, in this otherwise rather chance-reliant, dicepool-based system.

* side note: we have developed a system of houserules to make WoD in general more Karma-based, and it works mainly according to the above principle. Only instead of limiting the spendable points to WP alone, it allows players to do that with *any* of the points on their sheets.

Also from WoD, specifically from V:tM, we get the example of **Dominate**. One of the supernatural powers that a Vampire can develop in this game, this is a skill tree revolving around mind control. It normally works by demanding a roll from the user in order to make its power take effect, but adds a touch of Karma to the game by flat out stating that a Vampire can never Dominate another Vampire whose Generation is equal to or lower than their own. So, if this constellation happens (a higher-gen vamp trying to Dominate a lower-gen one), forget about the roll, the power will simply not work. This is the Karmic principle in its purest form, a single stat getting compared and giving you a clear and decisive 'yes' or 'no' resolution.

D&D's **Action Points** - acquired, like most things in D&D, by levelling up, Action Points can be spent to get a re-roll for a roll that you've just made in the game. A very valuable ressource in this game, being as it is even more chance based than WoD, such a re-roll, while far from giving you absolute cretainty of the outcome, does greatly influence chances in your favor. Add to that, at the point in time when you choose to use an Action Point in this way, you already know that the original roll is a fail, this is an important push towards player empowerment and increased control over their abilities and competences.

Also from D&D (3.5 and earlier), the way that Wizards, Clerics, and other **magic users cast their spells**: in the absolute majority of cases, there is no "to-cast roll" for spells like Fireball, Silence, Web, Fly, Invisibility, Polymorph, etc... Sure, sometimes the target gets a saving throw, but apart from that, Wizards can pump out their spells like in a game of cards: you play it, it is there. This, too, serves to give several (otherwise often weak[er] in combat) classes an important advantage. While the Fighter could easily hit someone with her sword a hundred times or more per day, she has to roll "to hit" every time she attempts to do so. The Wizard and Cleric will usually only have a handful (or maybe two dozen or so) of spells at their disposal, but when they use one of them, it (usually) can be expected to stick.

## Drama

whatever serves the story best

Finally, there are those games where Drama is King. Often eschewing rules for resolution mechanics altogether or at least tending to simplify them down very much, these games make it the responsibility of the GM (and/or the players) to decide what the best outcome of any given conflict or situation should be in the game's fiction, and then proceed to narrate that happening.

Fully realized mostly only in full-blown Freeform gaming, there are nevertheless a few games out there where Drama is the main (if not only) deciding factor, as intended by the rules.

Examples:

[...]

One of the great advantages of tabletop RPGs as opposed to so-called "RPG" computer games (and, incidentally, one of the main reasons for the above games to exist) is that a human mind is much more flexible, adaptable and creative in reacting to various situations that may come up in-game. A human GM is therefore (potentially) more competent in storytelling than a pre-programmed game or an AI could (currently) hope to aspire. A computer game will never be (properly) able to spontaneously take into account all (or even most) of the multi-layered factors and facets that make up a "good" (by any definition) story or an "enjoyable" scene, or the like, when calculating possible reactions or consequences to the players' in-game actions.

By the same logic, it must be a superior approach to leave decisions of this kind to GMs (and players), rather than consult random tables, complex rule systems, pre-planned adventure modules, or stick blindly to the GM's prep.

As mentioned above, if you go all-out with this, you end up Freeforming your entire game, not rolling a single dice all session, and not consulting any written material whatsoever, but going purely on player and GM inspiration and narrative gut-feeling.

if this is too extreme for you (and while we strongly recommend everyone try it at least once, especially if you have never played rules-lite or rules-less before, it can fall too far on the indulgent, fuzzy, inconclusive, navel-gazing, dubious-ideas-made-up-on-the-spot side of the scale for many folks in the long run), there are fortunately other ways to increase the importance of Drama in your game: In the following, we will describe a number of techniques how Drama-based design ideas can be included in more traditional, Fortune- or Karma-based game styles.

### Hybrid Forms II - GM Handwaving in Traditional RPGs

The right to narrate what happens is usually reserved for the GM in most traditional RPGs, with few exceptions, most of which revolve around the player describing their character's apppearance, actions, equipment, past life, home, friends and contacts, etc...

Every GM draws the line somewhere differently, here. For some, a player describing their character's drug-dealer contact is already off-limits, while others will readily let the players describe even more consequential things. Some prefer to give pre-made character with GM-written backstories to players, while others will allow players to describe the things listed above, *but only before the game*, e.g. as backstory, equipment fluff, or NPC suggestions, *never in-game*... To this we say: to each their own - but if you never tried giving your players that little bit more leeway with their descriptions, you might be missing out on a hell of a lot of cool stuff that could enrich your game once you give this a try!

Sometimes GMs hand the narration rights over to players, in a Don't Do Everything Yourself move, and let players reign freely with the fiction for a short while. For very traditional-minded GMs, this is most often done in scenes that they don't much care about personally ("yeah, go ahead and describe that filthy tavern you used to hang out looking for your first few quests back when you were a young idiot with no levels or class... I don't mind what the place looks like to be honest, it was you guys' idea to come here, I'm not invested in this at all"), or in scenes that they have intentionally designed to allow for player input in various forms.

[...]*some info missing*[...]

But there are games that codify such 'out-sourcing' of narration, i.e. games that write rules which tell you who is allowed to narrate what, at which time, and in some cases, to what extent.

### Hybrid Forms III - Rolling for Narrative Rights

You can take a bite out of games like PTA or New Fire, and *have* a (more or less classical) resolution mechanic, *but* not have it produce mechanical information as its outcome (such as how many points of damage are inflicted, or for how many turns the spell's victim will remain paralyzed) and wait for enough of this mechanical information to accumulate until a clear outcome of the situation begins to materialize.

Instead, you can take almost any game's default resolution mechanics and just make them about something different - namely, narration rights.

PTA, for example, has a fairly simple, fairly straightforward, fairly Fortune-based resolution mechanic (take as many dice as you currently have Spotlight (as fluctuating stat in this game), add one additional die for any Trait you have that factors into the situation at hand, and roll all of them. Roughly 50% of them will be successes. Your opposition does the same, and whoever wins this opposed roll, will get what they want.

This sounds deceivingly simple and blunt. It is not, when you get down to the details. Since in PTA, a part of the process that happens before any dice are even taken to hand, is that every participant in a conflict (and you only roll for real, meaningful conflicts, never for menial tasks or random skill use, etc.) states their desired ideal outcome first, there are already restriction in place about what can be narrated, before any rolls happen.

In addition, the party who has the highest single result on any one of their dice gets to be the one who narrates the scene's resolution.

So, for example, Shannon wants to remain unnoticed and escape the undercover cop chasing after her in a crowded bar. Detective Harker, on the other hand, wants to identify and catch whoever it was that sabotaged that big drug heist last week... Their players each take a number of dice and make their opposed rolls. The GM may also roll a few dice to represent the bar crowd, if he feels that the crowd opposes both of their attempts. Or maybe he adds his successes to Shannon's results, and subtracts them from the cop's successes.

In any case, since "highest single dice narrates", it may happen that Shannon escapes, but Harker's player narrates how it happens. Or maybe the cop catches the little monkeywrench, but it falls to the GM to narrate the details of the scene. Or any other constellation.

To round this out, intents don't have to be directly opposed to each other in PTA, but characters can also validly be at cross-purposes. (Shannon might want to impress the party crowd with how cool she is, *but* remain unnoticed by the cop, while the cop might be out to gather information about his unknown suspect from the bar's patrons, *but* not stand out too much himself... The crowd's dice, in this case, will oppose both of their attempts, of course.)

We trust that you can see the endless possibilities for player-driven (counting the GM amongst the players for this purpose) Drama if you dare to brave such, what must at first seem like narrative experiments and oddnesses.

...