Let's Talk About Core Game Mechanics

[Reynard]

The core mechanic isn't rolling dice; it's the communication between players.

No, that is the procedure of play.

 

[MichaelSomething]

No, that is the procedure of play.

What's the difference between procedure of play and core mechanic??

 

[Micah Sweet]

So....tooth decay, taxes, and home maintenance are just as likely to occur as fighting monsters, exploring dungeons, and finding magic items?

Depends on what the PCs (who we are paying the most attention to during active play) are doing with their time. If the PCs choose to spend their time fighting monsters and exploring dungeons (as will often be the case), of course those things will come up in play, as will finding magic items as appropriate to the activity in which the PCs are engaged and the characteristics of the setting. Managing tooth decay, paying taxes, and maintaining your home can all be handled with varying degrees of abstraction as desired, usually during downtime.

Your statement is needlessly hyperbolic.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Hmm. I think the core premise behind RPGs is communication, storytelling, and roleplaying.

But the core mechanic is....a mechanic.

I would replace storytelling with engagement with the setting, but otherwise I agree.

 

[Reynard]

What's the difference between procedure of play and core mechanic??

This question underscores your position that there isn't a difference, so I am not sure there is much I can say to change your mind.

A "core mechanic" is the system by which the questions that come up in the procedure of play are answered. Does that work for you?

 

[Bill Zebub]

I would replace storytelling with engagement with the setting, but otherwise I agree.

Sure. "Storytelling" doesn't have to be premeditated. The story can be "told" emergently.

 

[Scott Christian]

I am interested in getting a sense for what people like about a "good" core mechanic. What makes a "good" core mechanic, anyway? What are some of your favorites from various games, and why? Have you ever like a core mechanics but disliked the system as a whole? Vis versa?

If you design your own RPG, I really, really, really believe the idea of mechanics is attached to two very specific things:

1. The mechanics will highlight the parts of the game you want most.
2. The mechanics will be framed by your own personal biases.

I have a third, but it doesn't apply to everyone, as evidenced by some RPG out there. But for me:

3. The mechanics should help build and enforce the continuity of the setting.

For example, when I sat down to create a system many, many years ago, I knew I wanted combat to be a bit faster than the Rolemaster, D&D, and Dangerous Journeys' games I had been playing. (That attaches to idea 1.) I also had a bias against abilities. I never liked the idea that the wizard couldn't control magic through physical strength, or a fighter wasn't book smart. It made no sense to me. So, I ditched abilities and just leaned into skills. (That attaches to idea 2.) Lastly, I knew I wanted a game where things like darkness, travelling, and exploration meant something. Therefore, I used the rules to help keep those things relevant.

This brings me to what I like:
A) Straight D20 rolls. Want mathematical complexity, have dice pools. But keep the addition and subtraction out of it.
B) Standards and levels set for important skill checks as opposed to a pass/fail.
C) Choices at every level.

As for liking a system, but not liking one of its mechanics - I can't stand the hit point bloat found in D&D and PF. But I like both systems.

 

[Thomas Shey]

As for liking a system, but not liking one of its mechanics - I can't stand the hit point bloat found in D&D and PF. But I like both systems.

Oh, that can happen all of the time. I could probably list a dozen games that I like the overall game, but one or more of the mechanics in it bothers me to one degree or another. In a few cases they're dealbreakers that kill otherwise good systems from my POV (if I'm lucky they're easily houseruled out).