diff -r 9d840e23110a -r 7616057f23af resolution.xml --- 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 @@ - -
- - 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 FatE, - FatS and FitM acronyms, - which is related to when the players control the game, and the - Balance of Power (BoP), which is more - concern about balance between the players, the GM, and the - rules. - - 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. - - 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. - - 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. - - 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. - - 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. - -
@@ -527,6 +442,89 @@
+
+ + Contrôle dans le DRI + + 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 FatE, + FatS and FitM acronyms, + which is related to when the players control the game, and the + Balance of Power (BoP), which is more concern + about balance between the players, the GM, and the rules. + + 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. + + 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. + + 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. + + 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. + + 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. + +
+
Acknowledgements