Clever Mechanic?

[Dethklok]

What clever mechanic do you think most games would benefit from using, and why?

 

[GMMichael]

What clever mechanic do you think most games would benefit from using, and why?

You mean, besides Gumshoe's clue system, 4th Edition's bloodied status, and Numenera's XP?

I like my system's Mostly Dead rule. It basically says: characters don't die. Why make PCs roll new characters, when you can just make the story more interesting? If a character takes max damage, let him get back up after the fight, but give him a permanent feature, like a limp, missing limb, or a scar. Or get even crazier, and make that character a ghost, or zombie, or take the adventure into another plane.

 

[Celebrim]

What clever mechanic do you think most games would benefit from using, and why?

I don't think that there is a right answer to this question.

The mechanics a system uses are tied to the goals that the system has. If you import a mechanic from a system, you are at least in part importing the goals and intentions of that system. This may or may not be suitable.

In effect, if you answer this question with an affirmative, to me it sounds like you are saying all games ought to have the same goals and intentions.

 

[Type1RPG]

I feel Rule 0 is the cleverest mechanic.
I can't otherwise think of something else where I went "Ah, neat. Good way to do it." out of being generally impressed with the elegance and effectiveness.
I'm not sure if that's D&D-specific or shows up in every system already.

 

[Dethklok]

You mean, besides Gumshoe's clue system, 4th Edition's bloodied status, and Numenera's XP?

I like my system's Mostly Dead rule. It basically says: characters don't die. Why make PCs roll new characters, when you can just make the story more interesting? If a character takes max damage, let him get back up after the fight, but give him a permanent feature, like a limp, missing limb, or a scar. Or get even crazier, and make that character a ghost, or zombie, or take the adventure into another plane.

...I think I need a drink.

if you answer this question with an affirmative, to me it sounds like you are saying all games ought to have the same goals and intentions.

If so, that may be because you don't differentiate between "most" and "all."

I feel Rule 0 is the cleverest mechanic.
I can't otherwise think of something else where I went "Ah, neat. Good way to do it." out of being generally impressed with the elegance and effectiveness.
I'm not sure if that's D&D-specific or shows up in every system already.

Aha! I didn't think of that. Although I believe one can actually come up with a lot of things that most roleplaying games ought to have, like for instance character attributes, Rule 0 has got to be "the" mechanic that most rpgs really should have.

 

[Celebrim]

It doesn't sound any less absurd to me if you substitute "most" for "all".

I'm not sure "Rule 0" meets the definition I would use for a "mechanic" since you can't put Role 0 into a computer program and have it resolve the outcome, but even if we ignore that it is possible to imagine a whole bunch of RPGs that wouldn't benefit from "Rule 0". Pretty much any game played a gamist, competitive or adversarial manner pretty much needs the rule, "The rules will not change during play." as well as probably, "Rule changes must be approved by consent of all players." Even D&D played in a tournament setting lacks "Rule 0", and there are a great many tables where player trust of the GM is so low that they've depricated rule zero. Plus, there are games that are played without referees, or with a rotating hat for the story teller role. It's quite possible to run a LARP style game without a GM or largely without GMs, in which case "Rule 0" is certainly not in effect.

We could come up with a lot of meta-rules for games, some of which I would argue are much stronger than 'Rule 0', such as, "No one has to continue to play if they are not having fun." However, I wouldn't attempt to argue that such a meta-rule was actually a game mechanic.

 

[howandwhy99]

I'd have to agree that Rule Zero isn't a game mechanic at all. In fact, it's basically a rule that at any time you can quit following the rules of the game. ...and then you won't be playing one, so...

Game boards are very useful game mechanics. This doesn't have to be a cardboard cut out. Mancala has a unique board, so does Backgammon. Cards are "tapped" in front of a player to demonstrate their positioning in game too. But not all games have a geometrical space to calculate within to play the game. The calculation may go on in a player's head, like in 20 Questions.

Game Resources are another very popular game mechanic with vast variety, but not one that is essential to the design of a game.

Games with Win and Loss conditions are very common, though I don't think D&D has the former. I think a TPK represents a loss in D&D for a group. Individual players can start over with new characters after theirs is irrevocably lost and other players' PCs aren't, something that's actually quite difficult to do. D&D doesn't really have a Win condition, but a score is kept for each player in terms of XP.

 

[Dethklok]

It doesn't sound any less absurd to me if you substitute "most" for "all".

Oh my gosh! Look at all the neat threads over here! I'll bet there is at least one where you can accept the basic premise before posting.

I'd have to agree that Rule Zero isn't a game mechanic at all. In fact, it's basically a rule that at any time you can quit following the rules of the game. ...and then you won't be playing one, so...

You are using definitions for "mechanic" and "rpg" that I don't recognize. Many of the best games I've played in consisted of rule zero and nothing else - no character sheets, no dice, nothing except the players saying what they do and the gamemaster saying what happens; I have no desire to redefine the term "rpg" so that I no longer have a word to describe what we were doing.

Game boards are very useful game mechanics. This doesn't have to be a cardboard cut out. Mancala has a unique board, so does Backgammon.

Are you suggesting that most roleplaying games would benefit from having a board? Why?

 

[Celebrim]

Oh my gosh! Look at all the neat threads over here! I'll bet there is at least one where you can accept the basic premise before posting.

I didn't realize that the opinion, "There isn't one." was going to be a priori discounted as an answer.

I also find that the most interesting answers to many questions involve disputing the unreflected upon premises of the question.

I certainly wasn't attempting to rile you up about it, as I think my intial post in the thread demonstrates.

You are using definitions for "mechanic" and "rpg" that I don't recognize.

Funny, but you are using definitions for mechanic and RPG that I don't recoginze.

Meriam Webster provides as the definition of game: "a physical or mental activity or contest that has rules and that people do for pleasure". It sounds to me like you enjoy role-playing without the game aspect of it normally associated with an RPG. I take great pleasure in just telling shared stories and role-playing as well, but they they aren't games in the usual sense.

Likewise, mechanic is a term of art used in games to describe a rule or set of rules used by the players to arbitrate a proposition by a player from within a current game state and determine the new game state. For example, the D20 mechanic where you roll a dice, modified by circumstantial qualifiers, to try to exceed a target number in order to succeed at a task is a mechanic.

The assertion, "No one should be forced to play an RPG if they don't wish to do so", is good table rule, but is certainly not a mechanic.

Now, feel free to tell me what you mean by games and mechanics.

Many of the best games I've played in consisted of rule zero and nothing else - no character sheets, no dice, nothing except the players saying what they do and the gamemaster saying what happens; I have no desire to redefine the term "rpg" so that I no longer have a word to describe what we were doing.

If this is in fact true and you truly prefer rules free form play, it seems incoherent to even expect that there is a mechanic which all games would benefit from. In fact, I would have thought if anything, you're answer would have been the same as I just gave but in extreme - the clever thing to do would be remove all mechanics from the game rather than add to them.

I assure you though that in this case, you are just voicing a personal preference about games, and not saying something universal about RPGs. I've two 8 year olds and its fascinating to watch them engage in imaginative play of the sort you describe, without character sheets, dice, rules, or anything but the 'players' taking turns saying what happens. I can and have engaged in that sort of play, and during stretches my own games - even D&D - can seem like that sort of free form play. I will say though that first of all, Rule Zero isn't actually in force during such play. Completely lacking in mechanics, or at least in the usage of mechanics, there is no need for a Rule Zero to override the game mechanics in the first place. And secondly, that this sort of play isn't the sort of play that many or necessarily even most people who engage in RPG's prefer. Quite a few gamers will walk away from the table if Rule Zero is openly enforced or enforced in particular ways, and I've played with many gamers that understand the rules to be a contract binding all involved. I'm not saying that is necessarily my preference, but I certainly understand the motivation that is driving that.

If you look at how RPGs evolve out of free form imaginative play and theater games, they do so to try to handle two problems you see repeatedly crop up in such play. First, the problem of conflict familiar to any game of 'Cops and Robbers' or 'Cowboys and Indians'. In its most simple form:

Player #1: "Bang. I shot you."
Player #2: "No you didn't, you missed."

Thus the first need for a mechanic is born. In my own game at age 4, the mechanic we adopted was to throw a pine cone. If it struck, "Bang I shot you." If it missed, "No you didn't, you missed."

The other problem mechanics attempt to address is the problem of equal share of the play - a problem I see continually interrupting my kids free form play. Surely the best investigation of this problem in literature is 'Weekend with Wendall' by Kevin Henkes. Thus, the need for more mechanics are born.

It's precisely because Rules Zero threatens the mechanics that gaurantee each player an equal share of the play that many players of RPGs balk at its implementation. Rule Zero is not in fact a mechanic. It's a means of lifting mechanics when the players feel the mechanics are threatening the fun of play. But not everyone agrees that is worth while, nor is it true that most or even every game benefits from it. My game of Cops and Robbers as a 4 year old, surely an RPG by any definition, wouldn't have benefited from a Rule Zero that thwarted the pine cone rule.

 

[Ruzak]

Chewbacca! (Oh, not that kind of mechanic...)

Seriously though, I really like Edge of the Empire's obligation mechanic. I think many games could benefit from something where the characters' pasts come back into play unexpectedly.