Let's Talk About Core Game Mechanics

[Kannik]

I think the argument for sci-fi there is pretty clear. A lot of sci-fi settings have a lot of different kinds of vehicles, more even than modern settings. The genre examples we have for sci-fi also seem to mostly assume broad competency with the main division being starships and other, which I think is fine. I don't need even more piloting skills to cover all the possible sci-fi vehicles, thanks very much. Some people might, which is fine, but I don't. I do think there's a realism argument to made about it.

Especially since a particular popular sci-fi/space-opera setting has many times over had its major characters piloting super fast space fighters one moment and then expertly riding land animals in the next. And several other types of vehicles in between.

 

[JohnSnow]

Especially since a particular popular sci-fi/space-opera setting has many times over had its major characters piloting super fast space fighters one moment and then expertly riding land animals in the next. And several other types of vehicles in between.

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).

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

No offense, but I don't see how you can come up with a core mechanic without first determining what kind of game you want. Slow combat or fast combat? Modifiers or straight rolls? Universal mechanics or partial mechanics? etc.

 

[Thomas Shey]

To be fair, it was never about realism, but rather the sense of realism. There is a huge difference between the two, and everyone's line shifts as they grow in experiences.

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).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Others are likely to disagree, but I don't think emulation of reality is a worthy design goal at all. I think the primary, maybe only, design goal is to achieve what you intend in play. That probably reads as wishy-washy, but it is true. If you want your system to feel like gritty fiction, you design one way. If you want your system to feel like cinematic action heroism, you design another. But in very rare circumstances do people actually want their system to fell like "real life." And on top of that, "real life" is both boring and completely insane and very, very hard to emulate with system. I mean, just to use a standard old example: there are people who die falling off a step ladder, and people who survive multiple gunshot wounds. Model that.

Give me an open-ended resolution system and I'll absolutely do that for you. The question you need to ask is how far down the frequency of events you care about. If result X happens one in a hundred-thousand cases of situation Y, is that actually worth representing?

Naturally, like most such things there are elements of taste involved, but I think its fair enough to suggest that results that are low-probability enough they'd likely never show up in any individual campaign of any reasonable length, they aren't worth representng in the game system even if a sense of realism is desirable. Once you get past that, however, it turns on 1. Do you want a sense of realism in this particular area and 2. How far down that low frequency is needed for you to get that? And those are entirely in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Especially since a particular popular sci-fi/space-opera setting has many times over had its major characters piloting super fast space fighters one moment and then expertly riding land animals in the next. And several other types of vehicles in between.

Yes, but that particular space-opera setting is notoriously pulpy; its not every SF setting, not even every popular one (though in some, vehicular use in general, or outside of space-vehicles can be vanishingly rare).

 

[Thomas Shey]

No offense, but I don't see how you can come up with a core mechanic without first determining what kind of game you want. Slow combat or fast combat? Modifiers or straight rolls? Universal mechanics or partial mechanics? etc.

Well, you can discuss all of those as options.

 

[Reynard]

No offense, but I don't see how you can come up with a core mechanic without first determining what kind of game you want. Slow combat or fast combat? Modifiers or straight rolls? Universal mechanics or partial mechanics? etc.

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.

 

[Scott Christian]

Well, you can discuss all of those as options.

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.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

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.