The process of designing games is often a thrilling endeavor. You get to create: monsters, maps, worlds, classes, races, and practically anything else you can imagine. Often, this is the ‘fun’ stuff. The real work is usually getting it all to work out how you imagined. Nine times out of ten, when I create a game it doesn’t come out the way I imagined it would. Okay, it’s probably closer to 99 times out of 100. This isn’t always a bad thing. Part of the joy of game design is watching games evolve unexpectedly before your eyes. The input of creative playtesters can often give you new ideas you never would have dreamed of.
While many things in your game design will probably change, one thing usually remains the same: mechanics. Perhaps this is because players are leery of changing basic fundamentals of your game design. Perhaps nobody really cares to change mechanics. Perhaps people view it as a ‘law’ of the universe and aim to change other, more inconsequential, things. Whatever the case, you’ll probably have to address your game’s mechanics early on. You’ll probably be choosing the game’s mechanics out of instinct. When designing a new game, the mechanics often fall into place as easily as the new idea for the game itself. This is a good thing, but mechanics are so fundamental to good game design, they’re often worth a second look.
When talking about mechanics, there are often two terms being tossed around: ‘core mechanics’, and ‘other mechanics’. The core or ‘primary’ mechanic is usually the workhorse of your game. It’s the mechanic which resolves most contests in the game. There’s been a trend for the core mechanic to cover as many aspects of the game as possible to simplify and unify it. This also places a de-emphasis on the other mechanics of the game. This is a logical development: if you have a good core mechanic, why not use it for everything in the game?
No matter how good your core mechanic is, however, there are bound to be other mechanics operating in the game. It ‘is’ possible you could run a game on only a single mechanic.
Since it’s likely you’ll be working on a core mechanic first, we’ll have a look at that before the other mechanics in your game design. The core mechanic is probably the most important ‘crunchy bit’ in your game design. Choosing a good core mechanic can make or break a game. There have been many, many core mechanics over the years. Your game might use a core mechanic that’s tried and true, an alteration to an existing mechanic, or something completely new and innovative no one’s ever heard of before. The most classic core mechanic is a dice roll. Usually, this is a single die because the brain can register the number faster. Using a larger die will give you a larger range of numbers to work with, while a smaller die will probably be simpler. A second method is a combination of dice. This usually results in a curve where most of the results drift towards the center. It’s not one of my favorite mechanics because I like wild results rather than predictability. Also, I find it takes longer to calculate results with large numbers of dice. A third mechanic is a pool of dice (usually of similar type) where certain numbers are favorable. For example: all 6’s rolled in a pool of d6s could be helpful. Dice pools can also be used ‘opposed’ somewhat like in a game of Risk™. While I have nothing against this method, the multiple dice seem to slow things down, in my opinion. Basically, rolling a die gives you a random result. Adding a load of dice usually just means the number of dice replace the numbers on a single die.
As to individual dice themselves: you’re usually working in the range of actual physical dice available to you. This could include d5s and d30s, but their obscurity doesn’t make them a great choice. D6’s have a distinct advantage in that they’re almost everywhere and people readily ‘read’ them quickly. Many core mechanics are probably based on d6s because of this reason. Our mathematical system works well in 10’s and 5’s so those are strong choices as well. While a d10 might seem like the perfect choice, in practice I’ve found that the range is ‘too small’. This could just be me, but that’s my experience. The d20 seems to hit a nice niche of variance and falls on the 5% curve making it easy to comprehend. D100 is also a perennial favorite, and I’ve designed quite a few games using it. Being divisible by 10 and also giving a very large range (and doubling as percentage) d100 seems like a loaded choice. The disadvantages, I’ve found, are that 1% increments often get too unwieldy in actual gameplay, and that the two d10s often slow the ‘reading’ of the dice in play. Players often start picking out the ten’s quickly and only falling back on the one’s if they have to. This ends up giving you some of the same drawbacks as d10 systems.
So far, we’ve only been talking about dice. They are by no means the only core mechanic to run a game on, just one of the more common ones. Another popular choice is to run the core mechanic on ‘freeform’ or simply a determination amongst the players as to what happens. This sounds like a pretty cool way to run a game, but I’ve found it’s hard to write ‘rules’ for such a game. Games with a ‘freeform’ core mechanic almost seem to work better in person than on paper. I have written a number of games with variations on the ‘freeform’ mechanic. For instance, you could have all players bid on abilities which they can then activate in game unless too many other players ‘vote out’ the action and so forth. I’ve found it’s a pretty tricky thing to do effectively.
A deck of cards could probably be used as a core mechanic. I’ve seen it done once or twice, but the results are often hard for new players to ‘pick up’ quickly. This doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea. I think it would be cool to see an awesome game run on a deck of cards or something even stranger.
Lastly, there are the core mechanics no one has ever dreamed of. Whether they are alternations on existing core mechanics, or something of your own devising; these are often the best. New things are what make new games great. If you’re just creating a copy of another game, why bother? That’s not to say you can’t use an age old core mechanic to make a totally new and very cool game. I expect there will be many more d20, d100, d6, and dice pool games created for a long time to come. Just because your game doesn’t have a wonky core mechanic doesn’t mean it can’t be new and cool. Often, the simplest core mechanics are best. Mechanics are meant to stay fast and loose in the background so you can worry about all the cool stuff you’re planning on creating for you game.
A popular choice has been to dump as many secondary mechanics as you can into the primary mechanic. Since your primary mechanic ought to be the best anyway, why not dump in all the rest of your game and make it the One Mechanic to Rule Them All? While this is a great idea, I’d caution against dumping too many things into one mechanic. Sure, you can run most of your game on the primary mechanic, but usually a core mechanic works well because it’s simple: not because you have to derive 5 statistical results from one, overly-complicated roll. It’s probably possible to combine: saves, attacks, dodges, armor rolls, damage rolls, and hit locations all into a single toss of the dice. Do you really want to? Sometimes, yes. Often, no.
One trick is to use the same physical mechanic—like a die—but alter what the results mean based on what you’re doing. One die roll could be for attacking and altered by weapons held, abilities of the character, levels, etc. A second roll of the same die could be modified by ability to resist magic and so forth.
However you do it, ‘most’ games will have secondary mechanics in some form. They could be: specialized saving throws, dodge attempts, armor piercing rolls, magic potency, damage based on weapon type, or what have you. Secondary mechanics are often a lot easier to deal with than primary ones. Mainly this is because players have no qualms about altering them for you. If you try to have all weapons deal the same damage, most players will be more than happy to ‘invent’ weapon damage ratings for you.
While you could rely on your playtesters to figure this stuff out of you, they’ll probably be doing what makes sense to them—and has likely been done before. If you want to get real creative, you might want to take a shot at designing them yourself and then seeing if the playtesters can live with your ‘new’ mechanics or not. Again, most game designers will design these secondary mechanics on instinct. This is a good thing, but don’t forget to analyze ‘why’ you’re doing something over and over again. Sometimes the reason you’re stuck in a rut is because you keep doing the same things over and over again without thinking. I’m sure I’ve been guilty of using the same weapon damage and armor mechanics in some of my game designs far too often. It’s not a bad thing to do, just something to think about.
Modifiers
No discussion of mechanics would be complete without at least touching on the dreaded ‘modifier’. Modifiers have been around for a long time in RPGs and they’re probably here to stay. Some designers hate them, others love them. I’m a bit ambivalent towards them. While I have no personal love of modifiers, players simply ‘love’ gaining levels and getting ‘better’. It seems to be one of those secret, fundamental laws of the universe which just doesn’t make sense until it happens to you. If you’ve been designing games so long that you’ve forgotten what it’s like to be a player, I’d recommend giving it a shot with one of your games sometime soon. The other side of the proverbial table is far different. The designer’s concerns for a game are most definitely not the player’s concerns for a game. Sitting in the player’s seat, you will often wonder, “How much cool stuff can I get, and how quick can I get it?” If your character (your game has characters, right?) is static you might even lose interest in the game. If there’s something to ‘achieve’ even if it’s almost meaningless, you’ll probably go for it. Enter: pts. in video games, Enter: getting 3 gold stars in all levels for no apparent reason, Enter: gaining max level at all costs, and Enter: modifiers (usually).
One guy I know thinks modifiers are the bane of all RPGs. I don’t mind them, but I also hate how if you add too many you can really @#$#$# up your game designs by accident. Presumably, you now have some mechanics which do a half decent job of running your awesome game idea. Chuck in a load of modifiers, and you’re hard pressed to keep the game ‘balanced’. Balance is another loaded word in game design. Some hate it, some love it, and some couldn’t care less. However, that’s a topic for another time.
Good or bad, modifiers are something you should consider in your game designs. Whether they wreak your great mechanics, or make them work.
Derived Mechanics and Ability Scores
Ah yes, then there are ability scores and derived scores. If your game doesn’t have abilities/attributes or any derived statistics at all; I thoroughly applaud you. It’s probably such a unique odyssey that you’ll put us all to shame.
I won’t be discussing all the ramifications of ability scores here. It would require getting into long and loud arguments about what exactly an 18 strength means and if women characters or cyborgs are actually allowed to get it or not. Here, I’ll be touching on the implications to your mechanics.
Derived scores and mechanics are a special consideration just like modifiers. You could have the best mechanic in the world, but if you don’t consider the ‘pile up’ of modifiers to derived statistics you could get a seriously whacked out mechanic on your hands. Basically, derived statistics result from other statistics—whether randomized, chosen by the player, or pre-set by the game. Essentially, you can use as many as you want. Just remember to consider all the potential outcomes when all the scores start to pile up. This could be as basic as making sure a character with high strength can’t lift a school bus, or as complicated as making sure that 25 separate stats can’t add up to a total over 1,229.
Ability scores, in one form or another, are a special consideration. Most players assume you’ll have them. Sometimes you don’t, sometimes you do. If you ‘do’ have them, it’ll most often result in at least some derived statistics/modifiers to consider. A character with a high ‘score’ in fighting will presumably get some bonus ‘modifier’ to some combat ‘mechanic’. Whether random, point-buy, or something else, ability scores or their cousins will affect how your game mechanics operate. If you consider what they can do, you’re a step ahead of the game. If you’re considering whether you need them or not and how best to implement them in your own game design, you’re two steps ahead.
In summary, have fun designing your own mechanics. If you carefully consider their fundamentals, it should be easy to replace, redesign, or tweak them to suit your purposes. Oh yes, don’t forget to name your new mechanic something like, “The Ultimate 22 System”. That proves you’re a ‘real’ game designer.
While many things in your game design will probably change, one thing usually remains the same: mechanics. Perhaps this is because players are leery of changing basic fundamentals of your game design. Perhaps nobody really cares to change mechanics. Perhaps people view it as a ‘law’ of the universe and aim to change other, more inconsequential, things. Whatever the case, you’ll probably have to address your game’s mechanics early on. You’ll probably be choosing the game’s mechanics out of instinct. When designing a new game, the mechanics often fall into place as easily as the new idea for the game itself. This is a good thing, but mechanics are so fundamental to good game design, they’re often worth a second look.
When talking about mechanics, there are often two terms being tossed around: ‘core mechanics’, and ‘other mechanics’. The core or ‘primary’ mechanic is usually the workhorse of your game. It’s the mechanic which resolves most contests in the game. There’s been a trend for the core mechanic to cover as many aspects of the game as possible to simplify and unify it. This also places a de-emphasis on the other mechanics of the game. This is a logical development: if you have a good core mechanic, why not use it for everything in the game?
No matter how good your core mechanic is, however, there are bound to be other mechanics operating in the game. It ‘is’ possible you could run a game on only a single mechanic.
Since it’s likely you’ll be working on a core mechanic first, we’ll have a look at that before the other mechanics in your game design. The core mechanic is probably the most important ‘crunchy bit’ in your game design. Choosing a good core mechanic can make or break a game. There have been many, many core mechanics over the years. Your game might use a core mechanic that’s tried and true, an alteration to an existing mechanic, or something completely new and innovative no one’s ever heard of before. The most classic core mechanic is a dice roll. Usually, this is a single die because the brain can register the number faster. Using a larger die will give you a larger range of numbers to work with, while a smaller die will probably be simpler. A second method is a combination of dice. This usually results in a curve where most of the results drift towards the center. It’s not one of my favorite mechanics because I like wild results rather than predictability. Also, I find it takes longer to calculate results with large numbers of dice. A third mechanic is a pool of dice (usually of similar type) where certain numbers are favorable. For example: all 6’s rolled in a pool of d6s could be helpful. Dice pools can also be used ‘opposed’ somewhat like in a game of Risk™. While I have nothing against this method, the multiple dice seem to slow things down, in my opinion. Basically, rolling a die gives you a random result. Adding a load of dice usually just means the number of dice replace the numbers on a single die.
As to individual dice themselves: you’re usually working in the range of actual physical dice available to you. This could include d5s and d30s, but their obscurity doesn’t make them a great choice. D6’s have a distinct advantage in that they’re almost everywhere and people readily ‘read’ them quickly. Many core mechanics are probably based on d6s because of this reason. Our mathematical system works well in 10’s and 5’s so those are strong choices as well. While a d10 might seem like the perfect choice, in practice I’ve found that the range is ‘too small’. This could just be me, but that’s my experience. The d20 seems to hit a nice niche of variance and falls on the 5% curve making it easy to comprehend. D100 is also a perennial favorite, and I’ve designed quite a few games using it. Being divisible by 10 and also giving a very large range (and doubling as percentage) d100 seems like a loaded choice. The disadvantages, I’ve found, are that 1% increments often get too unwieldy in actual gameplay, and that the two d10s often slow the ‘reading’ of the dice in play. Players often start picking out the ten’s quickly and only falling back on the one’s if they have to. This ends up giving you some of the same drawbacks as d10 systems.
So far, we’ve only been talking about dice. They are by no means the only core mechanic to run a game on, just one of the more common ones. Another popular choice is to run the core mechanic on ‘freeform’ or simply a determination amongst the players as to what happens. This sounds like a pretty cool way to run a game, but I’ve found it’s hard to write ‘rules’ for such a game. Games with a ‘freeform’ core mechanic almost seem to work better in person than on paper. I have written a number of games with variations on the ‘freeform’ mechanic. For instance, you could have all players bid on abilities which they can then activate in game unless too many other players ‘vote out’ the action and so forth. I’ve found it’s a pretty tricky thing to do effectively.
A deck of cards could probably be used as a core mechanic. I’ve seen it done once or twice, but the results are often hard for new players to ‘pick up’ quickly. This doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea. I think it would be cool to see an awesome game run on a deck of cards or something even stranger.
Lastly, there are the core mechanics no one has ever dreamed of. Whether they are alternations on existing core mechanics, or something of your own devising; these are often the best. New things are what make new games great. If you’re just creating a copy of another game, why bother? That’s not to say you can’t use an age old core mechanic to make a totally new and very cool game. I expect there will be many more d20, d100, d6, and dice pool games created for a long time to come. Just because your game doesn’t have a wonky core mechanic doesn’t mean it can’t be new and cool. Often, the simplest core mechanics are best. Mechanics are meant to stay fast and loose in the background so you can worry about all the cool stuff you’re planning on creating for you game.
Secondary Mechanics
A popular choice has been to dump as many secondary mechanics as you can into the primary mechanic. Since your primary mechanic ought to be the best anyway, why not dump in all the rest of your game and make it the One Mechanic to Rule Them All? While this is a great idea, I’d caution against dumping too many things into one mechanic. Sure, you can run most of your game on the primary mechanic, but usually a core mechanic works well because it’s simple: not because you have to derive 5 statistical results from one, overly-complicated roll. It’s probably possible to combine: saves, attacks, dodges, armor rolls, damage rolls, and hit locations all into a single toss of the dice. Do you really want to? Sometimes, yes. Often, no.
One trick is to use the same physical mechanic—like a die—but alter what the results mean based on what you’re doing. One die roll could be for attacking and altered by weapons held, abilities of the character, levels, etc. A second roll of the same die could be modified by ability to resist magic and so forth.
However you do it, ‘most’ games will have secondary mechanics in some form. They could be: specialized saving throws, dodge attempts, armor piercing rolls, magic potency, damage based on weapon type, or what have you. Secondary mechanics are often a lot easier to deal with than primary ones. Mainly this is because players have no qualms about altering them for you. If you try to have all weapons deal the same damage, most players will be more than happy to ‘invent’ weapon damage ratings for you.
While you could rely on your playtesters to figure this stuff out of you, they’ll probably be doing what makes sense to them—and has likely been done before. If you want to get real creative, you might want to take a shot at designing them yourself and then seeing if the playtesters can live with your ‘new’ mechanics or not. Again, most game designers will design these secondary mechanics on instinct. This is a good thing, but don’t forget to analyze ‘why’ you’re doing something over and over again. Sometimes the reason you’re stuck in a rut is because you keep doing the same things over and over again without thinking. I’m sure I’ve been guilty of using the same weapon damage and armor mechanics in some of my game designs far too often. It’s not a bad thing to do, just something to think about.
Modifiers
One guy I know thinks modifiers are the bane of all RPGs. I don’t mind them, but I also hate how if you add too many you can really @#$#$# up your game designs by accident. Presumably, you now have some mechanics which do a half decent job of running your awesome game idea. Chuck in a load of modifiers, and you’re hard pressed to keep the game ‘balanced’. Balance is another loaded word in game design. Some hate it, some love it, and some couldn’t care less. However, that’s a topic for another time.
Good or bad, modifiers are something you should consider in your game designs. Whether they wreak your great mechanics, or make them work.
Derived Mechanics and Ability Scores
I won’t be discussing all the ramifications of ability scores here. It would require getting into long and loud arguments about what exactly an 18 strength means and if women characters or cyborgs are actually allowed to get it or not. Here, I’ll be touching on the implications to your mechanics.
Derived scores and mechanics are a special consideration just like modifiers. You could have the best mechanic in the world, but if you don’t consider the ‘pile up’ of modifiers to derived statistics you could get a seriously whacked out mechanic on your hands. Basically, derived statistics result from other statistics—whether randomized, chosen by the player, or pre-set by the game. Essentially, you can use as many as you want. Just remember to consider all the potential outcomes when all the scores start to pile up. This could be as basic as making sure a character with high strength can’t lift a school bus, or as complicated as making sure that 25 separate stats can’t add up to a total over 1,229.
Ability scores, in one form or another, are a special consideration. Most players assume you’ll have them. Sometimes you don’t, sometimes you do. If you ‘do’ have them, it’ll most often result in at least some derived statistics/modifiers to consider. A character with a high ‘score’ in fighting will presumably get some bonus ‘modifier’ to some combat ‘mechanic’. Whether random, point-buy, or something else, ability scores or their cousins will affect how your game mechanics operate. If you consider what they can do, you’re a step ahead of the game. If you’re considering whether you need them or not and how best to implement them in your own game design, you’re two steps ahead.
In summary, have fun designing your own mechanics. If you carefully consider their fundamentals, it should be easy to replace, redesign, or tweak them to suit your purposes. Oh yes, don’t forget to name your new mechanic something like, “The Ultimate 22 System”. That proves you’re a ‘real’ game designer.
