Unified Mechanics vs. Organic Systems

[howandwhy99]

First off, I'm no expert in game design or game theory even. While I do enjoy playing a lot of different games, RPGs are my favorite. So when I try all the different systems, old and new, I notice things that others probably already have a strong background in and language for.

What I'm looking for is a discussion or a written work about the pros and cons of unified game system rpgs and organic rpgs. What follows are my own definitions of what these are to me; sort of where I'll be starting from when I read these (presupposed) articles.


Unified mechanics are best exemplified by games like D20, D6, and Rolemaster. I don’t think a game with unified mechanics necessarily has to be for all genres, but it does have to have one (maybe two) core dice mechanics (maybe even diceless?) These are used in almost every situation. D20 uses the 20-sider + modifier vs. target number. D6 does something similar, but with dice pools. Tables tend to be scalable and linear. Separate systems (like jump & attack) mesh in mechanically predictable ways. This makes learning and extrapolating these systems simple and easy. It also allows for far less memorization of the rules.

Organic systems are more like 1st edition AD&D. Older computer systems like DOS were built in the same manner. Instead of having a consistent, often repeated set of operatives, organic systems create entirely new rules for every common situation. So jumping gets its own completely unique set of rules, magic another, grappling a third, and so on and so on. The benefit of this system is every ‘effect’ is compartmentalized and potentially highly accurate. Jumping rules can be removed and replaced in whole without affecting any other part of the system. Also, because there are no predetermined resolution mechanics, the potentially best mechanic can be used in each and every situation. This allows for a great deal of customizability for the the user. But it also requires of them a lot of work too.

While I haven’t listed any ‘cons’ of the game styles I presented, I did want to bring up another which sort of stands outside this theory. I’ve heard a lot of talk about what I’ll call Object-Based systems. If you know object based programming, then you probably know sort of what I’m referring too. I have seen this style a lot in optional magic systems like in Ars Magica, but GURPS tends to use it too. It’s sort of a hodge-podge, point buy where any type of character or magic can be created by combining pre-created rules packets. These don’t have to follow a unified mechanic per se, but they generally offer any manner of grouping the user can think up.


Again, my question is whether there is anything out there that gets a little deeper than this? Perhaps a thread here or somewhere else? Maybe a comment? I don’t propose these are the greatest definitions for game theory, but I thought I would put them out there.

 

[GuardianLurker]

I think you've identified the poles of a continuum/spectrum. Note that the examples you listed are not (IMO) the best examples of a unified mechanic - that honor would go to Blood of Heroes, or possibly BESM.

Likewise, I think exemplars of your "object-based system" (like D&D 2e) would often be closer to the "organic" pole rather than the "unified" one.

Overall, I think the unified systems will be easier to learn and run compared to the organic ones. In all cases, the rule-set will be either rules-complete or rules-incomplete. I think that the organic systems will tend to be rules-heavy and more complex, and often rules-incomplete. Unified mechanics will tend to be rules-heavy and simplified/abstract. Unified systems may prove rules-incomplete, but extrapolating the correct system is usually easier.

 

[howandwhy99]

This slipped off the mainpage pretty fast.

GL, you're right I may not be using the best examples. I hope I'm getting my question across clearly enough anyway.

 

[Pielorinho]

Interesting OP! Unfortunately, I've not seen any articles on this dichotomy, but it does seem like a real one. I'm reading through the rules for Ars Magica these days in preparation for running a game, and it's much less unified than D20 (although still more unified than plenty of other systems). I'm finding the rules alternately exasperating and wonderful, and I've still not decided whether I want to use them whole-cloth or try to form an unholy alliance between their rules and D20.

Actually, on second thought, Ars Magica may be MORE unified than D20, inasmuch as you only ever roll D10s, and you only roll multiple D10s when a botch occurs (i.e., more than 90% of all actions int he game are resolved by a single D10 roll). The downside of this is that you often have three or more disparate scores modifying that roll, and in many cases some of those scores are affected by multipliers, and in many cases some of those scores are themselves the results of other rolls.

For example, damaging someone in combat requires two rolls: I attack, you defend. My attack roll is modified by my skill with a weapon, my weapon's attack modifier, and my dexterity. Your defense roll is modified by your skill with a weapon, your weapon's defense modifier, and your quickness. If the difference between my attack and your defense is positive, I then add the difference to my strength and my weapon's damage modifier, and then you subtract from that total your stamina and armor soak bonus. If this difference is positive, it denotes the number of wounds that you take.

Two dice rolls, twelve modifiers, for each attack in combat. Granted, many of those can be pre-calculated; but at first blush, it looks pretty daunting.

Daniel