EzekielRaiden
Legend
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.
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.