Let's Talk About Core Game Mechanics

[Reynard]

The core mechanic isn't rolling dice; it's the communication between players.

No, that is the procedure of play.

 

[MichaelSomething]

No, that is the procedure of play.

What's the difference between procedure of play and core mechanic??

 

[Micah Sweet]

So....tooth decay, taxes, and home maintenance are just as likely to occur as fighting monsters, exploring dungeons, and finding magic items?

Depends on what the PCs (who we are paying the most attention to during active play) are doing with their time. If the PCs choose to spend their time fighting monsters and exploring dungeons (as will often be the case), of course those things will come up in play, as will finding magic items as appropriate to the activity in which the PCs are engaged and the characteristics of the setting. Managing tooth decay, paying taxes, and maintaining your home can all be handled with varying degrees of abstraction as desired, usually during downtime.

Your statement is needlessly hyperbolic.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Hmm. I think the core premise behind RPGs is communication, storytelling, and roleplaying.

But the core mechanic is....a mechanic.

I would replace storytelling with engagement with the setting, but otherwise I agree.

 

[Reynard]

What's the difference between procedure of play and core mechanic??

This question underscores your position that there isn't a difference, so I am not sure there is much I can say to change your mind.

A "core mechanic" is the system by which the questions that come up in the procedure of play are answered. Does that work for you?

 

[Bill Zebub]

I would replace storytelling with engagement with the setting, but otherwise I agree.

Sure. "Storytelling" doesn't have to be premeditated. The story can be "told" emergently.

 

[Scott Christian]

I am interested in getting a sense for what people like about a "good" core mechanic. What makes a "good" core mechanic, anyway? What are some of your favorites from various games, and why? Have you ever like a core mechanics but disliked the system as a whole? Vis versa?

If you design your own RPG, I really, really, really believe the idea of mechanics is attached to two very specific things:

1. The mechanics will highlight the parts of the game you want most.
2. The mechanics will be framed by your own personal biases.

I have a third, but it doesn't apply to everyone, as evidenced by some RPG out there. But for me:

3. The mechanics should help build and enforce the continuity of the setting.

For example, when I sat down to create a system many, many years ago, I knew I wanted combat to be a bit faster than the Rolemaster, D&D, and Dangerous Journeys' games I had been playing. (That attaches to idea 1.) I also had a bias against abilities. I never liked the idea that the wizard couldn't control magic through physical strength, or a fighter wasn't book smart. It made no sense to me. So, I ditched abilities and just leaned into skills. (That attaches to idea 2.) Lastly, I knew I wanted a game where things like darkness, travelling, and exploration meant something. Therefore, I used the rules to help keep those things relevant.

This brings me to what I like:
A) Straight D20 rolls. Want mathematical complexity, have dice pools. But keep the addition and subtraction out of it.
B) Standards and levels set for important skill checks as opposed to a pass/fail.
C) Choices at every level.

As for liking a system, but not liking one of its mechanics - I can't stand the hit point bloat found in D&D and PF. But I like both systems.

 

[Thomas Shey]

As for liking a system, but not liking one of its mechanics - I can't stand the hit point bloat found in D&D and PF. But I like both systems.

Oh, that can happen all of the time. I could probably list a dozen games that I like the overall game, but one or more of the mechanics in it bothers me to one degree or another. In a few cases they're dealbreakers that kill otherwise good systems from my POV (if I'm lucky they're easily houseruled out).

 

[Bill Zebub]

Riffing off of what @Scott Christian wrote above, some thoughts (that stray from "core mechanics"):

First, I strongly believe that mechanics can evoke setting & mood. It's why I'm not a fan of porting/re-fluffing 5e to every setting and genre, or the way Modiphius uses their same mechanics for everything under the sun. So start with the feeling you want to evoke, and then design mechanics that support that. (Giving you feedback on that process would be fun, too.).

When I first discovered TOR it took me a while to wrap my head around the fact that Hope points did not refresh. There were a few ways to get them back, but basically it was a resource that dwindled over your character's career. That blew my mind, and it was very evocative of Tolkien! But in return for it being precious it was powerful: you could use it to alter a roll after the fact.

Then in 2.0 they made Hope a cheap resource, easy to replenish, but all it did was add bonuses before the roll. Which is just like so many mechanics in so many games. Blah. If there was any single thing that made me stop playing TOR, it was that.

(By the way, a principle of mine is that bonuses that modify a roll should be passive, situational, or risk/reward, but shouldn't require resources to be expended. If you have to expend a resource it should be after the roll, such as re-rolling.)

Second...and responding to the comment about "hit point bloat"...I have been increasingly favoring fairly flat power curves. I don't think you should have to introduce new adversaries constantly in order to challenge players. A pack of orcs might swing from "deadly" early in the game to "easy" late in the game, but I really dislike how in so many games it swings from "impossible" to "trivial" in the span of a few levels.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Riffing off of what @Scott Christian wrote above, some thoughts (that stray from "core mechanics"):

First, I strongly believe that mechanics can evoke setting & mood. It's why I'm not a fan of porting/re-fluffing 5e to every setting and genre, or the way Modiphius uses their same mechanics for everything under the sun. So start with the feeling you want to evoke, and then design mechanics that support that. (Giving you feedback on that process would be fun, too.).

I don't think you're wrong per se, but I do think the degree to which its true varies heavily based on both the end user and the specific system elements. I know some people think generic systems never really bring the juice, but I've seen plenty of cases where the Hero System or Savage Worlds didn't seem any worse than some avowedly custom-made systems for a given genre or setting; on reading the 2D20 system (which is I assume what you're referring to regarding Modiphus) at least attempts to be customized for each new game, even if the core stays the same.

Which doesn't mean it isn't possible to custom build a system that supports setting or mood better than a generic system, but I'm unconvinced most of them do (and in the case of some settings or tones, I'm not even sure what a system that did so would look like that differs from a lot of generic systems).

When I first discovered TOR it took me a while to wrap my head around the fact that Hope points did not refresh. There were a few ways to get them back, but basically it was a resource that dwindled over your character's career. That blew my mind, and it was very evocative of Tolkien! But in return for it being precious it was powerful: you could use it to alter a roll after the fact.

The problem I always saw with that is I know a fair number of people (I might even be one of them) that would just sit on Hope forever and never use it.