--- a/resolution.xml Sun Jan 08 14:07:06 2006 -0500
+++ b/resolution.xml Sun Jan 08 14:07:12 2006 -0500
@@ -384,91 +384,6 @@
</listitem>
</varlistentry>
</variablelist>
-
- <section id="DRIFortune">
-
- <para>The control on the game events can be seen accross two
- dimensions: who have it and for which part they have it. The
- current RPG theory currently have two models for it: The
- Fortune model, describe through the <acronym>FatE</acronym>,
- <acronym>FatS</acronym> and <acronym>FitM</acronym> acronyms,
- which is related to when the players control the game, and the
- Balance of Power (<acronym>BoP</acronym>), which is more
- concern about balance between the players, the GM, and the
- rules.</para>
-
- <para>DRI provide a model based on the Fortune one, and so is
- more concern about the when then the whom. Although I
- consider this issue very important, is just that the current
- model doesn't add anything very useful to it. We can all see
- who are in control at which moment, but it's less clear how
- the exact balance is affected. I let's this to the BoP
- model.</para>
-
- <para>The original Fortune model include three different models:
- FatE, FatS and FitM. FatE, which stand for
- Fortune-at-the-End, is the most popular one: players describe
- what they try to achieve and roll the dice (or enable any
- resolution mechanics asked by the rules) and see if they
- succeed. This model is the one where the players have the
- less control on their character's destiny, since although they
- can decide what they do, they can't do anything to oriented the
- game after a bad roll, leading to PC die, etc.</para>
-
- <para>Fortune-at-the-Start try to give more power on the players
- about the issue of an action. The player roll the dice first,
- and seeing the result, decide what to do. This is most often
- used for initiative rolls, although some games try to use it
- for their resolution system, for example by letting the
- players draw cards and choosing their actions based on the
- cards in hand. FatS let you more control on the issues, and
- so on the story. FatS allow you to avoid most bad situation
- without need to fudging the dice, although it gives players
- less freedom on what their characters can do.</para>
-
- <para>Fortune-in-the-Middle, you guess, is a mix between both
- the precedent. The players choose their actions, call the
- resolution mechanics and, based on the results, describe their
- actions. This is the model which give the more narrative
- control on the events by the players.</para>
-
- <para>In DRI terminology, the three model can be describe using
- camel-cased variations of DRI. The use of uppercase signal
- players' control for this part of the events resolution, where
- a lower case letter signal rules control. So, FatE will be
- Dri, FatS drI, and FitM will be DrI. One will remark that the
- three models don't contain an uppercase R. It's may be seen
- obvious, giving this, that the reason for this it's, as long
- you are using fortune, calling to the resolution mechanics is
- always giving the control to the rule. Elsewhere, the game is
- no more contain Fortune element and so, can be better describe
- using either the Drama or Kharma mechanics. Well, I choose to
- say no to this hypothesis. Player cans have the control here
- too. Usually, players or GM let the rules describe which
- resolution mechanics used for a specific action: used this
- dice roll under this statistic for combat, or roll this
- statistic that number of time until you succeed thrice or
- more. A R system will offer you to choose the mechanic based
- on what you want the action to look like, not what's more
- appropriate. Used open roll for cinematic action, used
- extended roll to put more thrill, used simple roll on
- unimportant issues. Briefly, based your mechanic on narrative
- factors, instead of descriptive ones, since what you really
- want it's a good story and good atmosphere, nor an objective
- description of events. Although this look like a very
- narrative statements, credible simulations can still be
- achieve by such system. Currently, RPG used only one or two
- universal mechanics for most of their events resolutions.
- Simulation is often reach more through fine-tuned parameters,
- detailed tables or statistics or other related parameter, not
- through the specific resolution mechanics. Also, most
- resolution mechanics can be easily modified to give the same
- probabilities but with a different overall feeling. Since
- only the probabilities are essential for good simulation, this
- part is untouched and so can mood-based simulation system is a
- possible dream.</para>
-
- </section>
</section>
<section id="definition">
@@ -527,6 +442,89 @@
</section>
+ <section id="controle">
+
+ <title>Contrôle dans le DRI</title>
+
+ <para>The control on the game events can be seen accross two
+ dimensions: who have it and for which part they have it. The
+ current RPG theory currently have two models for it: The Fortune
+ model, describe through the <acronym>FatE</acronym>,
+ <acronym>FatS</acronym> and <acronym>FitM</acronym> acronyms,
+ which is related to when the players control the game, and the
+ Balance of Power (<acronym>BoP</acronym>), which is more concern
+ about balance between the players, the GM, and the rules.</para>
+
+ <para>DRI provide a model based on the Fortune one, and so is more
+ concern about the when then the whom. Although I consider this
+ issue very important, is just that the current model doesn't add
+ anything very useful to it. We can all see who are in control
+ at which moment, but it's less clear how the exact balance is
+ affected. I let's this to the BoP model.</para>
+
+ <para>The original Fortune model include three different models:
+ FatE, FatS and FitM. FatE, which stand for Fortune-at-the-End,
+ is the most popular one: players describe what they try to
+ achieve and roll the dice (or enable any resolution mechanics
+ asked by the rules) and see if they succeed. This model is the
+ one where the players have the less control on their character's
+ destiny, since although they can decide what they do, they can't
+ do anything to oriented the game after a bad roll, leading to PC
+ die, etc.</para>
+
+ <para>Fortune-at-the-Start try to give more power on the players
+ about the issue of an action. The player roll the dice first,
+ and seeing the result, decide what to do. This is most often
+ used for initiative rolls, although some games try to use it for
+ their resolution system, for example by letting the players draw
+ cards and choosing their actions based on the cards in hand.
+ FatS let you more control on the issues, and so on the story.
+ FatS allow you to avoid most bad situation without need to
+ fudging the dice, although it gives players less freedom on what
+ their characters can do.</para>
+
+ <para>Fortune-in-the-Middle, you guess, is a mix between both the
+ precedent. The players choose their actions, call the
+ resolution mechanics and, based on the results, describe their
+ actions. This is the model which give the more narrative
+ control on the events by the players.</para>
+
+ <para>In DRI terminology, the three model can be describe using
+ camel-cased variations of DRI. The use of uppercase signal
+ players' control for this part of the events resolution, where a
+ lower case letter signal rules control. So, FatE will be Dri,
+ FatS drI, and FitM will be DrI. One will remark that the three
+ models don't contain an uppercase R. It's may be seen obvious,
+ giving this, that the reason for this it's, as long you are
+ using fortune, calling to the resolution mechanics is always
+ giving the control to the rule. Elsewhere, the game is no more
+ contain Fortune element and so, can be better describe using
+ either the Drama or Kharma mechanics. Well, I choose to say no
+ to this hypothesis. Player cans have the control here too.
+ Usually, players or GM let the rules describe which resolution
+ mechanics used for a specific action: used this dice roll under
+ this statistic for combat, or roll this statistic that number of
+ time until you succeed thrice or more. A R system will offer
+ you to choose the mechanic based on what you want the action to
+ look like, not what's more appropriate. Used open roll for
+ cinematic action, used extended roll to put more thrill, used
+ simple roll on unimportant issues. Briefly, based your mechanic
+ on narrative factors, instead of descriptive ones, since what
+ you really want it's a good story and good atmosphere, nor an
+ objective description of events. Although this look like a very
+ narrative statements, credible simulations can still be achieve
+ by such system. Currently, RPG used only one or two universal
+ mechanics for most of their events resolutions. Simulation is
+ often reach more through fine-tuned parameters, detailed tables
+ or statistics or other related parameter, not through the
+ specific resolution mechanics. Also, most resolution mechanics
+ can be easily modified to give the same probabilities but with a
+ different overall feeling. Since only the probabilities are
+ essential for good simulation, this part is untouched and so can
+ mood-based simulation system is a possible dream.</para>
+
+ </section>
+
<section id="ack">
<title>Acknowledgements</title>