Dedicated Mechanics

[EzekielRaiden]

If a mechanic exists, it should serve at least one well-defined function. Being well-defined does not mean being narrowly defined, but it is usually easier to create a mechanic that is well-defined if one keeps the definition narrow. The d20 system is built on a mechanic with a wide but well-defined function, for example, or how PbtA systems use 2d6+MOD for all player moves that involve a roll.

Hence, I prefer systems that, if they make use of a mechanic, they ensure that that mechanic actually does something productive. I find far too many mechanics serve vague ends or fail to actually serve the intended end. Either way, these things are held for reasons other than being effective as mechanics, e.g. my previous gripes about mechanics being valued aesthetically (e.g. they sound nice, or create symmetric structures, since symmetry is aesthetically pleasing) despite being ineffective or even actively bad.

At least some of the time, yes, I do think special-purpose mechanics would be more useful to a game than exclusive reliance on general-purpose ones. That's not a universal maxim, e.g. Skill Challenges are an excellent mechanic specifically because they are general-purpose, but it is something I think designers can easily lose sight of. Just as it is not wise to build a whole game out of special-purpose mechanics*, it is not IMO wise to totally exclude special-purpose mechanics from the game design toolbox. Metaphorically speaking, needlenose pliers may not be required for wirework, but God in Heaven, you FEEL it when you don't have them. It is good to conscientiously use special-purpose mechanics, knowing the costs and benefits thereof.

*One of the design issues with early D&D; it was cobbled together over time, and that made it often incredibly esoteric and difficult to play.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

If a mechanic exists, it should serve at least one well-defined function. Being well-defined does not mean being narrowly defined, but it is usually easier to create a mechanic that is well-defined if one keeps the definition narrow. The d20 system is built on a mechanic with a wide but well-defined function, for example, or how PbtA systems use 2d6+MOD for all player moves that involve a roll.

Hence, I prefer systems that, if they make use of a mechanic, they ensure that that mechanic actually does something productive. I find far too many mechanics serve vague ends or fail to actually serve the intended end. Either way, these things are held for reasons other than being effective as mechanics, e.g. my previous gripes about mechanics being valued aesthetically (e.g. they sound nice, or create symmetric structures, since symmetry is aesthetically pleasing) despite being ineffective or even actively bad.

At least some of the time, yes, I do think special-purpose mechanics would be more useful to a game than exclusive reliance on general-purpose ones. That's not a universal maxim, e.g. Skill Challenges are an excellent mechanic specifically because they are general-purpose, but it is something I think designers can easily lose sight of. Just as it is not wise to build a whole game out of special-purpose mechanics*, it is not IMO wise to totally exclude special-purpose mechanics from the game design toolbox. Metaphorically speaking, needlenose pliers may not be required for wirework, but God in Heaven, you FEEL it when you don't have them. It is good to conscientiously use special-purpose mechanics, knowing the costs and benefits thereof.

*One of the design issues with early D&D; it was cobbled together over time, and that made it often incredibly esoteric and difficult to play.

As an engineer, I find generalization to be a powerful tool though. Like d20 (and its spawn, whether you call 4e a d20 game, or 5e they fall under the same umbrella) sticks to using that 20-sider for all adjudication. That's powerful because it means any part of the game, subsystem or not, 'speaks the same language' as the other parts. So if I pull out my sword to cut the rope in an SC, I can instantly tell you exactly what the success probability is based on nothing more than the level of the challenge and my bonuses for swinging a sword. Older classic D&D was always unimpressive to me in this regard where every other thing you did used some different size of die. How do I apply ability score bonuses to that consistently? How do I adjudicate the above example of cutting the rope? What happens if the wizard enchants my sword, or the cleric blesses me? d20 unequivocally solved MOST of that. And the cases where these games failed (4e skills and attack bonuses don't quite match up well enough to be used one against the other for instance) stand out like sore thumbs.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

As an engineer, I find generalization to be a powerful tool though. Like d20 (and its spawn, whether you call 4e a d20 game, or 5e they fall under the same umbrella) sticks to using that 20-sider for all adjudication. That's powerful because it means any part of the game, subsystem or not, 'speaks the same language' as the other parts. So if I pull out my sword to cut the rope in an SC, I can instantly tell you exactly what the success probability is based on nothing more than the level of the challenge and my bonuses for swinging a sword. Older classic D&D was always unimpressive to me in this regard where every other thing you did used some different size of die. How do I apply ability score bonuses to that consistently? How do I adjudicate the above example of cutting the rope? What happens if the wizard enchants my sword, or the cleric blesses me? d20 unequivocally solved MOST of that. And the cases where these games failed (4e skills and attack bonuses don't quite match up well enough to be used one against the other for instance) stand out like sore thumbs.

I don't really understand what you're arguing against, seeing as I explicitly said that general-purpose mechanics are good and useful (and, indeed, that the fact D&D moved toward them was an unequivocally good thing.)

My whole point was "we have swung the pendulum too far the other way." We started off WAY WAY WAY too far toward the special-purpose end, at least for D&D. We corrected that error. I believe, in doing so, we collectively learned a false lesson, namely that general-purpose mechanics are absolutely always, and in every condition of things, superior to special-purpose mechanics. That we should totally exclude special-purpose mechanics from the design toolbox. That (to use an example perhaps closer to engineering senses) we have gone from having a thousand unique socket wrenches—which is clearly not very effective—to mandating that there are only allowed to be exactly two socket wrenches, and thus bolt heads, for all projects people will ever make, no matter if they are toys for children or river-spanning bridges. This is of course somewhat hyperbolic, but I hope it communicates what I mean. Special-purpose mechanics have valid use cases. They are not perfect. They should not be used without careful thought, but they should not be totally forsworn either.

If we had swung 30 degrees too far in favor of special-purpose mechanics before, we have swung 5 degrees too far in favor of general-purpose mechanics today. It is an improvement, a massive one. But, IMO, it is still off.

 

[Blue]

There's no need to make any mechanics for this, let alone enforce or "force" them. You're already free to award bonus XP for good roleplay, and there's inspiration points in 5th as well. If anything at most, you could use the threat clock from AW, but 4thE also makes use of the skill challenge. Make 5 failures during the heist at its most crucial moment, and the jig is up.

"Need" to make mechanics? No - you don't need any rules at all to roleplay. "Want" - ah, that's another matter.

Heist stories often involve a lot of planning. As every single person who ever played Shadowrun can tell you, it involves several hours of real time planning that goes out the window when a twist or something unknown/unexpected comes up. So a game focusing on heists allowing flashbacks means that the players can jump right into the action, and have planning and preparation done when needed, and only for the things they are needed for. It a much more active game, and a more satisfying one. In D&D, you don't "need" those rules as the right DM could do it by fiat. But that doesn't mean that foir the sake of that game's community as a whole that you don't want those rules. This way you have some consistent, including between groups, guidance for the GM to make it easier for them (remember a community will have newbie DMs up through vets and should cover all their needs), and the players have an idea of what's appropriate and if there are any metacurrency costs to keep it to a reasonable amount.

Across all groups playing that heist game, it makes for a better net experience summed from the diverse tables.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't really understand what you're arguing against, seeing as I explicitly said that general-purpose mechanics are good and useful (and, indeed, that the fact D&D moved toward them was an unequivocally good thing.)

I think we are mostly agreeing. I often post merely to concur and possibly elucidate

My whole point was "we have swung the pendulum too far the other way." We started off WAY WAY WAY too far toward the special-purpose end, at least for D&D. We corrected that error. I believe, in doing so, we collectively learned a false lesson, namely that general-purpose mechanics are absolutely always, and in every condition of things, superior to special-purpose mechanics. That we should totally exclude special-purpose mechanics from the design toolbox. That (to use an example perhaps closer to engineering senses) we have gone from having a thousand unique socket wrenches—which is clearly not very effective—to mandating that there are only allowed to be exactly two socket wrenches, and thus bolt heads, for all projects people will ever make, no matter if they are toys for children or river-spanning bridges. This is of course somewhat hyperbolic, but I hope it communicates what I mean. Special-purpose mechanics have valid use cases. They are not perfect. They should not be used without careful thought, but they should not be totally forsworn either.

Well, OK. I think I did get that, and there was where there was some (in my mind at least) mild difference in our positions. I think the strongest approach is to start with a universal mechanical foundation. I like to use 4e as an example since its a pretty clear one. With 4e you have your basic d20 check mechanic, and then about 4 specialized systems are layered ON TOP OF that; namely, combat, skill challenges, rituals, and diseases. All 4 of these leverage the common d20 checks, but in slightly different ways. Now, you could probably develop other similar subsystems. Frankly I think MOST of them, in 4e, would be variations on the SC format, though the disease track is certainly ripe for exploitation too (I'd consider rituals as mostly a specific use of basic checks, though it could be combined with SCs or diseases in interesting ways).

In fact, I have done all this in my own system, HoML. There are combats and challenges, which utilize the check mechanism (though there are no 'free checks' in HoML outside of those). I reworked the disease track into a generalized rule for Afflictions. They now operate as specific variations of the challenge system however, so if you get a disease, you must go through a challenge, and the severity of the disease will be related to the number of failures accrued. Rituals/Practices OTOH are still simple checks, but because checks cannot happen outside of challenge/combat, they have acquired a rather different role, mechanically, though in a conceptual sense they're not really different from what 4e offered.

My point in detailing the above is simply that it represents a process of generalization which allows for specialization. You could, for instance (in 4e or HoML) devise a subsystem for puzzle solving. It would simply be a specific set of design constraints and conventions placed on the use of the challenge mechanics. There is no need for radically different rules here. Likewise a whole slew of things can be folded under the aegis of afflictions, including diseases, curses, wounds, and poisons. No doubt someone could devise other sorts of afflictions as well! Since they are now formally challenges, any specific challenge-related mechanical infrastructure can also be leveraged by afflictions.

IMHO this is, generally, the most powerful type of design. I'm certainly not opposed to some stuff falling outside of this. So, for instance, there are rules about recovery, about companions, about shape shifting, and a few other things which are not really going to fall within the specific realms of challenge or combat because they don't involve checks, per se. Companions for instance is a set of rules that is simply all about action economy in combat/challenge situations, but in essence stands alone on top of the core action rules.

If we had swung 30 degrees too far in favor of special-purpose mechanics before, we have swung 5 degrees too far in favor of general-purpose mechanics today. It is an improvement, a massive one. But, IMO, it is still off.

As I say, I'm not sure its actually a case where you necessarily need to think of it as two opposed and mutually exclusive options.

 

[MGibster]

Dedicated Mechanics can be really nice for a short, silly, lite, fluffy, simple game. Perfect for a one shot. Everyone wants to play a "pirate" game, so you pop out the Pirates! game. It's fun to use the Dancing Jig Dedicated Mechanic and the Swashbuckling ones too.

Short, silly, lite, fluffy, and simple games like Vampire the Masqerade?

They really fall short for any type of serious game. All these games have to take pages of pages to try to impress everyone with there "look our rules are NOT D&D, so they are so much better", then only have a couple paragraphs for the dedicated mechanics. Having a player take a "move action one" from "page six" does not make for an amazing game. So the dedicated rules are nice, but the bulk of the game rules are not.

What's a serious game and which games take pages to try to impress everyone with their "look our rules are NOT D&D?"

PLUS, dedicated rules have the focus problem. Some one only thinks about a topic one way, and they make that the focus of the whole game. Now if the game is honest about what it is, it's not such a problem. But too many games hide it, just saying how great the game is as it has dedicated mechanics, but does not let you see them.

There's a scene from the 1986 documentary film Critters where a young man arrives to pick up April, the farmer's daughter, in his Porche 911 for their date. Her father takes a look at the Porche and tells the young man, "You can't haul much hay in that." Which is true, but it's not really what a Porche was made for. Dedicated rules that have a focus problem are only a problem if you don't like what they're focused on.

 

[bloodtide]

Short, silly, lite, fluffy, and simple games like Vampire the Masqerade?

As per most of the time, I'm not talking about a named game.

What's a serious game and which games take pages to try to impress everyone with their "look our rules are NOT D&D?"

Again, I'm not naming game names.....I talk about play styles.

There's a scene from the 1986 documentary film Critters where a young man arrives to pick up April, the farmer's daughter, in his Porche 911 for their date. Her father takes a look at the Porche and tells the young man, "You can't haul much hay in that." Which is true, but it's not really what a Porche was made for. Dedicated rules that have a focus problem are only a problem if you don't like what they're focused on.

Right? That was my point.

If we had swung 30 degrees too far in favor of special-purpose mechanics before, we have swung 5 degrees too far in favor of general-purpose mechanics today. It is an improvement, a massive one. But, IMO, it is still off.

I think most game designers had the desire to make their game as unlike D&D so they went for the Big Swing.

 

[MGibster]

Again, I'm not naming game names.....I talk about play styles.

In the context of this discussion, what is a serious game? You said bespoke systems aren't good for serious games, so I specifically name one, Vampire, which is both serious and possible to have long campaigns with.

I think most game designers had the desire to make their game as unlike D&D so they went for the Big Swing.

I don't. I think when most of them make a game for a specific purpose they're not doing it out of a desire to be unlike D&D.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

As per most of the time, I'm not talking about a named game.

Again, I'm not naming game names.....I talk about play styles.

Come on, you make claims that there are games with characteristic X, Y, or Z, and then when someone asks for a citation, it's all some mysterious 'talking in abstract'. I think it might be talking about nothing to be rather blunt about it.

Right? That was my point.

No, it wasn't actually. @MGibster was definitely refuting you by pointing out that your 'focus problem' is nothing more than "I don't want to play what this particular game offers" which actually makes it YOUR problem for deciding to play that game, even though it is not what you want (need in the farmer analogy).

I think most game designers had the desire to make their game as unlike D&D so they went for the Big Swing.

I hate to disappoint you... Early RPGs did a lot of things, but MANY of them aimed to be fairly generic, either in what they could handle within their settings -ala D&D- (most did this) or to an even greater degree as being specifically designed as universal systems. There is a LONG LONG list of such universal systems, they're still being produced regularly today! (Cypher system would be a modern example). You would be more accurate to say that there are quite a few specialized games today. However, they are MOSTLY based on a small number of general purpose 'engines', either ones dating all the way back to first half of the '80s, or things like FATE, Cortex+, PbtA, or FitD. I don't think it is fair to complain about the lack of generality of games like this, as they are absolutely not intended to be, and do not need to be, general. If you want a generalized PbtA game for instance, that won't even work! However you can borrow playbooks from any PbtA and use them in other PbtAs (maybe some won't work well, depending on how far distant the agenda/genre are from each other). Likewise FitD is a pretty general 'engine' and you can bring in subsystems, crew sheets, and character types (classes) from any FitD into others, or simply add new ones as-needed to do something new. BitD itself has a number of attached thematic little subsystems too, those are quite easy to add, and generally are fairly setting/genre specific anyway.

I will be honest, I'm not at all convinced by a lot of the arguments as to what systems are 'more general' than others. Yes, some may have been developed with a very specific setting in mind, but usually employ fairly general RPG design principles. There are really only a few exceptions, like maybe Monster Hearts is pretty niche, or My Life With Master, though I don't know a ton about either game.

 

[Aldarc]

If you want a generalized PbtA game for instance, that won't even work! However you can borrow playbooks from any PbtA and use them in other PbtAs (maybe some won't work well, depending on how far distant the agenda/genre are from each other).

I don't know. It's possible. It may not be as good as a dedicated one, but I imagine that it's possible in one shape or another. One could, for example, use a more generic playbook that used Fate-like player-created Aspects or Cortex-like Distinctions. Maybe some guidelines on how to create custom moves for a character.

Or alternatively, making a character in Ironsworn involves a sort of grab bag of initial assets (e.g., abilities, tools, allies, and such) that the player can pick for constructing their character. That would also provide a potential model for a more generic PbtA game.