Out with the old (Game design traditions we should let go)

[pemerton]

Mechanics that support the genre allow for playing the game without knowing that much, because the fun zone is marked with brigh retroreflecting stripes, and dangerous pits are surrounded with fences. You don't need to rely on intuition -- if the game allows you to do something, then it's something appropriate.

Sadly, that last sentence isn't always true - it's not uncommon for RPGs to have incomplete rules!

 

[overgeeked]

It's playable, yes. But it requires greater trust in people you're playing with, that they actually know and understand the genre and the setting, and, more importantly, that their knowledge and understanding is synchronized with yours.

The amount of trust required to play an RPG with people is already really high. Instead of trusting the referee to have read and attempted to memorize the rules and to actually follow them, you trust the referee to know the genre and run the game according to that knowledge rather than the limitations of the book.

Synchronized understanding? That’s literally what Session Zero is for. They still take place. And if there’s an asynchronous moment in game then you pause and talk, just like you’d have to with rules disputes.

Freeform roleplaying lives on self-restraints, because the lines aren't, khm, marked. You need to just know where you can step, and where you can't.

Again, Session Zero and the referee is there to guide you. And I’m not actually advocating for free-form, rather utterly minimalistic rules.

Mechanics that support the genre allow for playing the game without knowing that much, because the fun zone is marked with brigh retroreflecting stripes, and dangerous pits are surrounded with fences. You don't need to rely on intuition -- if the game allows you to do something, then it's something appropriate.

You see pointers and warnings signs, I see limitations and constraints. For the system to “allow” you to do something it has to have mechanical support, yet it’s not possible to have a rule for everything. At best you can have a few broadly applicable rules that cover most things. Which is what I want. Utterly minimalistic rules that you only use when necessary. I don’t like pure free-form. A sentence, a paragraph, a 3x5 card. That’s enough rules. One or two pages if you must but that should also cover specific genre expectations if you’re getting that long winded.

Besides, praising mechanical restraints completely ignores the fun of the game, being able to try anything. That’s what the referee is there for. To figure out the right response to the players’ whacky plans that aren’t covered by the rules. It’s the difference between a coloring book and a canvas.

 

[Yora]

Party rationale is the very first thing I establish when creating a campaign.

There are some settings in which it is neatly built-in, such as Tribe 8.

I have only two rules in my campaigns about the characters that players make, aside from the character options from the game that are available:

• Every PC must want to go on the kind of adventure the campaign is about.
• Every PC must want to adventure together with the other PCs.

Everything else I don't care about, the players have to work that out among each other. But a character that doesn't fit the two rules just isn't playable in the campaign.
It should be obvious, but lots of people think a PC who dislikes the others and doesn't want to adventure is super cool. It can be made to work in a story, but not in a group game.

 

[GMMichael]

Rules = mechanics.

I stopped in to see how my sacred cows were holding up. Looks like they haven't been in danger for several pages now. But I'm sorry Jd, I can't let this one fly.

There's a certain amount of irony going on here. "Mechanic" is one of two things: a "mechanism" and used correctly, or a "rule" and used incorrectly. The irony is that I believe in many cases, "mechanic" is the lazy man's version of " mechanism, " because it's shorter by one syllable. Why the lazy man (don't worry, he's a friend of mine) doesn't just say "rule," because it's shorter still, is beyond me.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I wouldn't call misrepresenting my position "fair."

I've heard you say it many times, though. You think things should play out with the GM making the call (free-roleplay) until the GM decides to call for an opposed roll, usually said as opposed 2d6. That's a coin toss. I mean, I guess you could have something you do for ties, but I don't recall what it is. This is something you've expressed represented as 'all that is needed.'

 

[Yora]

I stopped in to see how my sacred cows were holding up. Looks like they haven't been in danger for several pages now. But I'm sorry Jd, I can't let this one fly.

There's a certain amount of irony going on here. "Mechanic" is one of two things: a "mechanism" and used correctly, or a "rule" and used incorrectly. The irony is that I believe in many cases, "mechanic" is the lazy man's version of " mechanism, " because it's shorter by one syllable. Why the lazy man (don't worry, he's a friend of mine) doesn't just say "rule," because it's shorter still, is beyond me.

Explain the difference between a game mechanic and a game mechanism then, please.

 

[Cadence]

I stopped in to see how my sacred cows were holding up. Looks like they haven't been in danger for several pages now. But I'm sorry Jd, I can't let this one fly.

There's a certain amount of irony going on here. "Mechanic" is one of two things: a "mechanism" and used correctly, or a "rule" and used incorrectly. The irony is that I believe in many cases, "mechanic" is the lazy man's version of " mechanism, " because it's shorter by one syllable. Why the lazy man (don't worry, he's a friend of mine) doesn't just say "rule," because it's shorter still, is beyond me.

From the OED for Mechanics

Which feel likes its getting at the idea. If mechanics plural is details, mechanic singular could be one of them?

So it doesn't feel like all those web-sites using game mechanic as rule are too far off, if at all.

 

[GMMichael]

From the OED for Mechanics
View attachment 251962

Which feel likes its getting at the idea. If mechanics plural is details, mechanic singular could be one of them?

What does the OED say a "mechanic" is? I'll wager it's different from "mechanics."

My OAD says that a mechanic is a skilled workman, while mechanics is (yes, it's singular) the scientific study of motion and force. Since I'd say RPGs don't quite fit that bill, I can go down the line a bit further and start to answer @Yora 's question with these not-quite-matching definitions:

Mechanics: the processes by which something is done.
Mechanism: the process by which something is done.

So no, a rule isn't a game mechanic. You can't take a singular word (mechanics) and pry the s off to make it more singular. At least, not in English. Jd (see above) is close: rules can describe a process, which can in turn join other processes so something can be done (mechanics). But it's probably more correct to say "rules constitute mechanics" than "rules = mechanics."

 

[James Gasik]

I know MMO players use "mechanic" and "mechanics" as slang for things that occur during boss fights. Like "in this phase, arcane whirlwinds spawn in the room that follow around characters, these need to be kited back to the boss" would be described as a mechanic.

Words get invented and/or get new meanings all the time, it's just how language evolves.

 

[Cadence]

What does the OED say a "mechanic" is? I'll wager it's different from "mechanics."

My OAD says that a mechanic is a skilled workman, while mechanics is (yes, it's singular) the scientific study of motion and force. Since I'd say RPGs don't quite fit that bill, I can go down the line a bit further and start to answer @Yora 's question with these not-quite-matching definitions:

Mechanics: the processes by which something is done.
Mechanism: the process by which something is done.

So no, a rule isn't a game mechanic. You can't take a singular word (mechanics) and pry the s off to make it more singular. At least, not in English. Jd (see above) is close: rules can describe a process, which can in turn join other processes so something can be done (mechanics). But it's probably more correct to say "rules constitute mechanics" than "rules = mechanics."

As I quoted though, one definition of "mechanics" is "operational details". Both plural. Removing the two s's doesn't seem a big leap. ::::

In any case, see the final example for the singular "mechanic" here, also from the OED.