What do you Consider to be a "Unique" Mechanic?

[pemerton]

One can, in fact, talk about, or even write an entire academic paper on, the differences between a chicken egg, a quail egg, and a duck egg, and never reference a single specific recipe that uses eggs!

I don't really know where you're going with this metaphor. But my first thought was this: a materials engineer might write a very interesting paper about the physical properties of those different eggs, but until those physical properties are somehow connected to the actual life processes of quals, duck and chickens, and the reproductive function of their eggs, then the the paper is not a full-blooded contribution to biology. Of course it might still be very helpful to biologists.

An account of (say) the mathematics of dice rolls or the physics of a Jenga tower might be useful for RPG designers. But on its own it is not a full-blooded account of a RPG mechanic.

I've seen posters assert (for instance) that 5e D&D uses a common mechanic across combat and non-combat because an attack roll and an ability/skill check involve the same process (d20 roll + adds, with the adds derived in comparable ways eg by reference to stat bonuses and proficiency numbers). I think that assertion is false, and obviously so, because the consequence of a successful attach roll is (at least in the most generic case) purely a further mechanical determination (roll damage, adjust a tally) and the consequence of a failed attack roll is that there is no change in the game state, whereas the consequence of a successful ability/skill check, and often of a failed one also, is a direct change in the fiction.

Once this difference in the two mechanics is noted, quite a bit of the play experience of 5e D&D, and the discussions that occur about that experience, becomes readily understandable.

(Nothing in this post adds very much to what Vincent Baker said about this stuff back in 2009. I don't think that Baker is the last word on RPG design, but I do think he has shown that one can't talk about how to individual RPG mechanics without reference to their effect, which includes how they relate to the fiction.)

 

[Shiroiken]

I guess it really falls into "how do you define a unique mechanic." To me, a unique mechanic isn't the difference between two similar concepts, but rather a specific mechanic designed to integrate and define a gaming system. The best example of this would be the use of playing cards in the original Deadlands RPG; it was designed to give the feel of the old west gambling. The new Legend of the Five Rings RPG has a mechanic that introduces stress over time, which eventually causes your character to make a break from the very rigid cultural requirements (causing social issues that can impede your goals). I'm sure there are others, but I can't think of any at this time.

It's hard to say that D&D has any "unique" mechanics, because many of them have been repurposed over the years, making little of them truly unique (not to mention used by other RPGs). Each edition might have a few unique mechanics however, such as BECMI using race as class, which was very integral to its final concept. The 4E powers mechanic is unique not because of how it worked (at-will, encounter, and daily), but the fact that it was a universal mechanic that was integral to how 4E was meant to work (everyone was equal in abilities). A semi-unique 1E & OD&D mechanic was the fact that levels were fully unlimited, but this wasn't really an integral defining aspect of either edition (even if people abused it to create 100+ level characters).

 

[aramis erak]

A semi-unique 1E & OD&D mechanic was the fact that levels were fully unlimited, but this wasn't really an integral defining aspect of either edition (even if people abused it to create 100+ level characters).

For OD&D, that's not entirely truthful. It only allows that for humans. Further, it doesn't actually support that permission with the needed rules.

OD&D Vol1 doesn't give a per-level above 9th for fighter, 11th for wizard, nor 8th for cleric, and doesn't give other stats past 10th for fighter, 16th for wizard, nor 10th for cleric. It does place racial maximums on elves in both classes (and severe ones, at that F4 and W8) and on the one allowed class for Dwarves (F6) and Halflings (F4). Thus, it really only pays lip service to unlimited level in the notation on that.
Sup 1 does give a per level for thieves, but doesn't remedy the lack of clarity on higher levels of Vol 1 classes. It also changes demi-human limits by 1 for 17 and 2 for 18 above the base... But it does add the other needed mechanical support for W22 and C20, but only T14.
Sup 2 does not give a per level for monks nor assassins, nor does it remedy the lack in Vol 1. It also sets a hard maximum for monks and assassins (M16, A14), and supports both to that level.

Some interesting tidbits, tho' - saves stop progressing at F13, C13, W16. Cleric Turning at 8th.
To hit under the alternate combat system is capped at F16, C21, W26

Both AD&D 1E and 2E provide per-level above x and support to at least level 20 except for monks, druids, and assassins (with Assassins absent from 2E), and both limit demi-humans levels except in thief.

 

[pemerton]

I guess it really falls into "how do you define a unique mechanic." To me, a unique mechanic isn't the difference between two similar concepts, but rather a specific mechanic designed to integrate and define a gaming system.

The OP isn't asking for unique = unduplicated or novel mechanics, but rather is asking how do we individuate mechanics:

my basic question is, is effect enough to make for a completely new mechanic? In my mind, it doesn't. A sword and a dagger deal different damage, but, the mechanics of both are identical. 3e skills and 5e skills work exactly the same - roll a d20 plus a modifier vs a DC. There are differences of course, the DC's in 5e are capped by bounded accuracy, but, the mechanic is the same.

Both AD&D 1E and 2E provide per-level above x and support to at least level 20 except for monks, druids, and assassins (with Assassins absent from 2E), and both limit demi-humans levels except in thief.

In AD&D 1st ed Half Orcs are not unlimited in their progression as thieves. They are "unlimited" as assassins, but this still caps at 15 (because that is the maximum level for any assassin).

 

[Shiroiken]

The OP isn't asking for unique = unduplicated or novel mechanics, but rather is asking how do we individuate mechanics:

The rest of my comment should have implied that I agreed with the OP that the minor variations of the same mechanic are not new or unique. The original example was the short rest between 4E and 5E, which were variations of the same concept, simply implemented differently. The same is true for the use of Fort, Dex, and Will saves between 3E and 4E, even though they were calculated completely differently.

I will disagree with the OP about the skill system: the 3E skill system allowed for a lot more nuance, while 5E is similar to 4E. Otherwise you fall into the logic that nothing has really been new since the d20 system has been implemented, because almost everything is roll a d20 with modifiers against a target number.

 

[pemerton]

The same is true for the use of Fort, Dex, and Will saves between 3E and 4E, even though they were calculated completely differently.

I think this undersells the difference that it makes building your defence on the basis of the best of two stats. The scaling difference is also significant. I would say that 4e took from 3E the idea of three non-AC defences but then decided to calculate and scale them quite differently, so as to achieve the sort of standardised maths that both 4e and 5e aim at.

 

[Lanefan]

Oh, of course it is tenable.

Whenever you design a thing, you think about the result you want to achieve. Then you think about the tools, materials, and techniques you have to produce that result. I don't care whether it is a wrench, a game mechanic, a cooking ingredient, or a rhetorical technique, it is fair to talk about the things that are in your metaphorical toolbox as separate from the result - specifically because generally the same tool can be used to produce several different results.

It seems you're talking about the end driving the means here, where one selectively chooses (or invents) mechanics and tools to achieve a desired end result. Which makes sense.

But what happens if-when its the means that are seen as important, and the end result just becomes whatever happens to get out-put by the mechanics and tools used? (as an example, this is my usual approach to playing music - it's the actual creating and playing that's fun, while the end result that gets recorded might very well not be fun for anyone else!)

And this same difference can be seen in D&D design. 1e was results-driven: the designers knew what they wanted something to do and just invented whatever particular mechanic was needed to do that one thing. 5e is - or certainly seems - more mechanics-driven: everything runs on d20 and advantage-disadvantage, and the results are much more left to take care of themselves.

If you always tie discussion of the mechanic to the aesthetic, you are very apt to put blinders on, and fail to see other aesthetics that can be produced.

Stepping away from the context of application is thus a useful exercise.

On reading this, I now think we more or less agree and are just saying much the same thing in different ways.

 

[Hussar]

Well, to be fair, in 1e, the notion of sitting down and designing an entire rpg, top to bottom, seems a bit strange. They were designing as they went along, bolting on whatever mechanics happened to be in their head at the time without a whole lot of regard towards how the whole game fits together.

But, to be fair, AD&D is chock a block with unique mechanics. Rogues are using a completely unique system that is not shared by any other class. I'm not sure if there was that much thought being put into it, to be honest. It wasn't "well, we have this thing that needs some sort of mechanics, so, we'll use different mechanics to make it "feel" different" so much as, "Well, we need some way to adjudicate this, umm, sure, let's use percentile this time." It was far more hodgepodge than deliberate.

 

[Scott Christian]

Apologies, did not have time to look at others comments.

Perception when it came out.
Crit tables.
Initiative (other than standard).

 

[pemerton]

1e was results-driven: the designers knew what they wanted something to do and just invented whatever particular mechanic was needed to do that one thing. 5e is - or certainly seems - more mechanics-driven: everything runs on d20 and advantage-disadvantage, and the results are much more left to take care of themselves.

As far as results are concerned, 5e is hyper-engineered - at least for the mathematics of combat, which is its principal mode of resolving conflicts that arise in the course of the game. Even without actually comparing all the numbers, one can see the evidence in such things as departures from classic dice spreads (eg fireball no longer does 5d6 when a 5th level mage first learns to cast it) and the abandoning of 3E-style creature building (eg NPC mages have proficiency based on CR but hit points and spells that correspond to a - much higher - notional level).