Let's Talk About Core Game Mechanics

[Reynard]

Ok. So I assume you feel it is better to withhold the information about the game. Is this so people aren't led down a specific path of thinking? If so, I get it. But, it does seem a bit counteractive to what you are trying to accomplish. The questions I proposed attach themselves directly to a game's mechanics. They aren't options, but rather choices that must be made.

And sure, you could argue there is a middle or dual ground for the questions. But that still directly connects to the mechanics, even if it is in the middle.

As I thought I made clear in the OP: this thread isn't about "my game's" core mechanic. It is about core mechanics in general. It isn't goal oriented, other than as a venue to drink in some other perspectives. I am not hiding anything -- I am process exploring in the form of online discussion. You may have noticed that I am a big fan of that.

 

[Thomas Shey]

But they directly attach themselves to the core mechanics of a game. They are not options - they are choices that must be made. And it is definitely better to make them prior to deciding the core mechanic than after.

I meant "Which of these do I want to use? What's their strengths and weaknesses?" in the sense of "options for what I'm going to use." Before you can decide on one, you need to have some idea what masters they each will serve.

 

[Scott Christian]

As I thought I made clear in the OP: this thread isn't about "my game's" core mechanic. It is about core mechanics in general. It isn't goal oriented, other than as a venue to drink in some other perspectives. I am not hiding anything -- I am process exploring in the form of online discussion. You may have noticed that I am a big fan of that.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply hiding was bad. I thought it might be to eliminate a bias towards one idea or another. Thanks for explaining.

 

[Scott Christian]

I meant "Which of these do I want to use? What's their strengths and weaknesses?" in the sense of "options for what I'm going to use." Before you can decide on one, you need to have some idea what masters they each will serve.

By masters, do you mean mechanics?

 

[Micah Sweet]

And, of course, context. When you're trying for some genres and sorts fo settings, you don't so much want a sense of realism as the kind of realism those present. Its why I roll my eyes a little when people get snarky about realism in settings with dragons and magic; as someone once said, some of the best SF makes one basic assumption that isn't probably true, and otherwise just extrapolates from that. Similarly good fantasy can very well be extremely selective about where it violates reality, it doesn't do it wholesale (though of course you can have some that does that too, but it isn't a given that in for a penny, in for a pound is what you want or will automatically produce a better setting).

This I agree with. I always prefer breaks with reality to be specifically called out, both in fiction and in games. Once you've done that, you can make all kinds of supplemental breaks that follow, and have a foundation on which to do so. You can also have wild, improbable things happen so long as they could happen, given the setting logic at play.

I think of a story as one way a series of events in the setting could go, even when the results are improbable. It's when they're impossible given the setting that I start to take issue.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The premise in that particular sci-fi/space opera setting is that operating most vehicles is explicitly similar.

That being said, we have fiddled around with fly-by-wire controls for aircraft even now. And if we can't figure out reasonably simple drive by wire tech by the time we have FTL, I'd say we will have entirely failed as a technological species.

Savage Worlds separates flying, driving, and boating. And while arguments could certainly be made about powerboats versus sailboats, the general principles of how they interact with water are similar. Flying more advanced aircraft involves more controls (which SWADE can handle with its optional rule of "familiarity" - which feels right for a pulp setting).

And why do Mandalorians need jet packs since anti-gravity tech exists?

And don’t get me started on tracking fobs.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I prefer the word “consistency” over realism, simulation, verisimilitude, etc.

 

[Barner Cobblewood]

To be clear, I don't intend to pick a core mechanic and THEN decide what the game is about. The purpose here is to talk about system in an organized way, which means starting with core mechanic. I am interested in what people find compelling about different forms of core mechanics, for the very purpose of helping me determine what is a good one for the game gestating in my brain.

Not sure if this is what you mean by core mechanic, but I like games where the players (everyone at the table) roll dice only when the outcome is both uncertain and likely to be significant for the N/PCs involved, and for outcomes unpleasant to all concerned to always be possible. So in combat both parties can hit, or both miss, but there is always a cost to it.

I don't like rolling more dice than comfortable for in cupped hands, so 2 to 5 max, 3 best.

I prefer rolls to determine how successful, or how unsuccessful, the action is to be bell curves, but I like the rolls determining the outcomes to be linear. 2 separate rolls, neither more nor less, but ...

I like extreme failure and success rolls to explode in a linear way.

I like levels, skills, etc. to only move the bell curve of success / failure, not change its shape. Not do they change the outcomes - equipment etc. can do that. High levels skills etc. don't roll extreme successes more often, but are more successful on average.

I like opposed rolls, so assign levels to challenges.

I hate grinding - so events involving dice rolling should be short.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I like extreme failure and success rolls to explode in a linear way.

Can you explain what you mean by "explode in a linear way"? Example mechanic?

 

[Thomas Shey]

I prefer the word “consistency” over realism, simulation, verisimilitude, etc.

No offense intended here--but that's what discussion on these boards need, another terminology argument.