Let's Talk About Core Game Mechanics

[payn]

Not that this thread hasn't already drifted, but I think skill granularity is well out of the scope of "core mechanics."

Whats the next thread?

 

[Fenris-77]

In general I'm not into skill systems....I love how Shadowdark handles it...but if there are going to be skills then I like that system to be unified with combat, instead of treating them entirely differently. In other words, skills should be a "core mechanic" and not something bolted on. (Looking at you, D&D...).

It's one of the things I like about Dragonbane: my Swords skill works exactly like my Bushcraft works exactly like my spellcasting skill. So are dodging and blocking. And progression in all those skills is the leveling.

The downside of that system (and this includes other Free League iterations) is that magic really kind of gets the shaft a little in terms of impact. That's fine if low fantasy is what you want, but not otherwise. I say this as someone who really likes that die pool system quite a bit.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Not that this thread hasn't already drifted, but I think skill granularity is well out of the scope of "core mechanics."

Are you trying to keep it down to things like just die resolution and the like? Because I tend to think degree of skill lumping/splitting gets down pretty near the ground generally. I find it more core than almost any part of a combat system for example.

 

[TiQuinn]

Whats the next thread?

I don't know but I'm sure he'll tell everyone exactly how to post and what opinions to have in that one as well.

 

[Fenris-77]

My little piece of litmus paper detects serious quantities of salt.

 

[Reynard]

So that makes them fair game here, I think. You don't roll stats much in BRP games nearly as often as you roll skills. It's really not my favorite kind of system, but I think we're still colouring inside the lines.

Fair enough. I am not trying to scold or shut down the discussion. I just wanted to note where I saw the distinction -- mostly because my intent is to scaffold a system of my own, starting with a core mechanic.

 

[Fenris-77]

Fair enough. I am not trying to scold or shut down the discussion. I just wanted to note where I saw the distinction -- mostly because my intent is to scaffold a system of my own, starting with a core mechanic.

Yeah, you do have a project (and I wish you well), but that project doesn't really mean the topic has bumpers attached. Skill granularity is a core topic for many, many kinds of RPG design.

 

[Reynard]

Are you trying to keep it down to things like just die resolution and the like? Because I tend to think degree of skill lumping/splitting gets down pretty near the ground generally. I find it more core than almost any part of a combat system for example.

Just trying to approach things methodically. I know threads drift and that's fine. I just don’t want everyone to burn themselves out on the "skills" discussion before can actually have it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Micah and I were talking about this elsewhere. I said something about inventing a mechanic and then slapping a label on it, and Micah responded that he didn't think it was usually done that way.

I don't either generally.

What I thought about, but never went back to write, is that I didn't actually think think it was done in that order, either, but it could be. Meaning that in a lot of games you could take a mechanic like dodge, or parry, or deflect, or block, or slip, etc., and take the mechanic associated with that move and apply it to one of those other labels. E.g, imposing Disadvantage on an attack could make an equally good Dodge or Parry or Block. But they are not all the same thing. Which, to me, means it's not really a simulation of that specific move (let alone the dozens of variations of each one of those moves) but a general "make it harder to hit me".

Ah, but in the case I was describing they have both Dodge and Block, and they're both different mechanically and provide different benefits. That's one of the things that makes it a much more satisfactory representation IME.

I'm seeing appeals to authority around various martial arts that I don't know. The only one I've practiced is boxing, and even without weapons (or kicks, or elbows, or wrestling moves...) it's still incomparably more complex than any pencil & paper combat system.

Using an analogy to video games and flying a plane, RPG combat isn't a flight simulator. It's Defender.

I'm not doing an appeal to authority so much as showing my experience with the realities of some of these things doesn't end at watching movies. At some point, if the people who actually are famliar with real world expression of some skills and concepts aren't a good enough source for assessing them, who is? I don't try and assess firefight systems strongly because I only know what I've read (though since I've tried to make sure I pay attention to people who do know what they're talking about I use that data when assessing them), but when you make a claim like "All these combat systems are bad at expressing the reality" and I disagree, I think I should at least show that there's more than my gamist tastes in action there.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Just trying to approach things methodically. I know threads drift and that's fine. I just don’t want everyone to burn themselves out on the "skills" discussion before can actually have it.

That's why I asked where you're trying to draw the line.