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

[Sacrosanct]

I was having a discussion the other day about D&D and I mentioned, (as I've mentioned on these boards before) that I thought that 4e and 5e share a lot of mechanics. My conversation partner disagreed and I brought up the notion of short and long rest. The whole two step recovery system, while slightly different in the in-game time requirements) work exactly the same way. They're the same mechanic, just with a minor variation. The other person totally disagreed with me and stated that the change in time requirements made the two systems completely different.

I've run into this sort of thing elsewhere too. Talking about classes and how the classes don't really have any new mechanics - it's all X abilities/Y time period. The effects might be different, but, the mechanics are the same. Being immune to X or Y isn't two mechanics, it's just one mechanic (immunity to ) with a different effect.

Do you consider each spell to be a unique mechanic? Or, are the underlying mechanics (level, casting time, etc) pretty much the same for all spells, which only differ by effect.

I guess 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.

Or, am I stuck on too narrow a definition?

For the most part I agree with you. But I’m sure by page 4 we’ll probably argue over some tiny pedantic thing that I can’t manage to describe right now, probably due to a massive sinus headache, so let’s just skip to “you’re wrong!”

 

[Umbran]

My conversation partner disagreed and I brought up the notion of short and long rest. The whole two step recovery system, while slightly different in the in-game time requirements) work exactly the same way. They're the same mechanic, just with a minor variation. The other person totally disagreed with me and stated that the change in time requirements made the two systems completely different.

...

Or, am I stuck on too narrow a definition?

No, I'd say you're about right. In the example above, really the two-step healing/rest mechanics are the same thing, with some small variation.

I don't really thing the results or "play feel" are particularly helpful in determining if two things are different mechanics. Mechanics are... technical elements. Mechanics are the engineering of RPGs. Whether two mechanics are different is not an aesthetics question, but an engineering question.

 

[Hussar]

Yes, thank you @Umbran , that's what I was trying to get across.

 

[billd91]

No, I'd say you're about right. In the example above, really the two-step healing/rest mechanics are the same thing, with some small variation.

I don't really thing the results or "play feel" are particularly helpful in determining if two things are different mechanics. Mechanics are... technical elements. Mechanics are the engineering of RPGs. Whether two mechanics are different is not an aesthetics question, but an engineering question.

The mechanics may be the same but with variations, but the variations can make a huge difference in feel. It's like changing the proportion of granulated sugar vs brown sugar in your chocolate chip cookies - the mechanics of adding them to the batter are the same, but the cookie is different. The same is true with rest durations - and all you have to do is define the short rest as overnight and long rest as a week to see why. Again, they're just (minor) variations on the same mechanic but they'll have a big effect on how the game paces out.

 

[Umbran]

The mechanics may be the same but with variations, but the variations can make a huge difference in feel.

Sure. Just as you can have an internal combustion engine that powers a tractor, or a sports car, or a hybrid car - these are all tuned differently, but they are, in the end, still mechanically much the same.

By the same token, you can have two different mechanics that manage to give much the same feel - to first approximation, for most people a modern all-electric car and a gas-powered vehicle drive pretty much the same on your way to get groceries.

 

[pemerton]

I don't really thing the results or "play feel" are particularly helpful in determining if two things are different mechanics. Mechanics are... technical elements. Mechanics are the engineering of RPGs. Whether two mechanics are different is not an aesthetics question, but an engineering question.

Yes, thank you @Umbran , that's what I was trying to get across.

Given that the function of mechanics in a RPG is to generate shared fiction, and one important way of distinguishing Fiction A from Fiction B is the aesthetic elements of A vs those of B, I don't think the distinction between engineering and aesthetics/feel is all that tenable when we're discussing RPGing (as opposed to, say, engines).

To use a really easy example: it seems hard to explain why the Jenga tower in Dread is a distinct and important mechanic without referring to its feel in play and contribution to the aesthetic experience.

To use a more subtle example: a description of the Apocalypse World resolution mechanics wouldn't be complete without noting that, if a player rolls 6 or less, the GM can make as hard a move as s/he likes. But you can't explain what a hard move is without reference to matters of aesthetics and feel (like following from the established fiction and delivering on the promised threat. (Without mentioning these things someone might think that the AW mechanics are similar to the Classic Traveller mechanics - after all, both use 2d6 plus modifiers - but that would be a fairly serious misconception.)

 

[Umbran]

Given that the function of mechanics in a RPG is to generate shared fiction, and one important way of distinguishing Fiction A from Fiction B is the aesthetic elements of A vs those of B, I don't think the distinction between engineering and aesthetics/feel is all that tenable when we're discussing RPGing (as opposed to, say, engines).

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. 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.

To use a really easy example: it seems hard to explain why the Jenga tower in Dread is a distinct and important mechanic without referring to its feel in play and contribution to the aesthetic experience.

"Why this is important in Dread," is discussion of a mechanic within a specific context. But, we can discuss, compare, and contrast our tools outside of specific contexts too! 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!

Eventually, someone who has read that paper will use eggs in some recipe, and apply the information to a specific context. But not every discussion has to do that.

 

[aramis erak]

A follow-up to the above: a new effect can certainly in some cases be a new mechanic.

Eg in Burning Wheel each player character has a Circles stat, which can be used for a check like any other ability/skill. The DC is determined by the sort of NPC the player wants his/her PC to meet, and the effect of a successful check is that the PC meets the desired NPC.

From the point of view of PC build rules, and basic resolution method, there is nothing that distinguishes Circles from (say) the Speed atrribute or the Sword skill. But in terms of purposes and resolution outcome, it is very different. In the RPGs I know (far fewer than @aramis erak upthread) the only one I can think of that has something similar is the Streetwise skill in early versions of Traveller (later versions, including the 1981 edit/reprint, changed the skill description to reduce the element of player authorship).

Several other games have had contact-calling abilities, it's been reinvented multiple times. A lot of them were (like BW Classic) small press and little known. But not all.

GDW readded player narrative creation of NPCs via the Contacts rules in the 1990's Traveller: The New Era.

GURPS allows players to buy Allies and Contacts, and (in 3R, at least) not specify them until using them.

In Hero System, I had a player use a gadget pool to create NPC allies and contacts on the fly.... Another took a disad that was creative use of the rules: Rival, Local Badass (most of the time, everywhere, but no Extensive NCI). He also had Cha 25 and group levels in social skills.

Vampire had assorted ways to add NPCs linked to the character: Herd, Allies, Contacts...

Most games allowing it add it in CGen, not play; GURPS, Traveller, and later Burning Wheel formalized it. Houses of the Blooded/Blood & Honor allow creating and detailing out characters in play as just another action.

Fate, Cortex Plus, and 2d20 system all allow metacurrency to add NPCs to the scene.

And, as you eloquently pointed out, it's not the dice mechanic that's special, but the oft reinvented player control over creation of NPCs that feels novel... but it's unfortunately not novel, just uncommon, thanks to the multiple reinventions.

 

[aramis erak]

@aramis erak It would be rather rare, however, to find multiple die mechanics in the same game in modern RPG's. Other than AD&D, most games used one, maybe two different die mechanics for the game.

until the mid 90's many used 3+ different dice mechanics, sometimes more.

AD&D uses more than 2...
d20 roll high (to hits, saves, turn undead)
d20 roll low (attribute checks - rare but legit; more common with NWP's in UA)
d100 roll low (Thief, Bard, Monk, Thief-Acrobat skills)
range on single d6 (racial detects)
d6 roll high initiative and surprise
d100 on table... lots of them.
XdY damage
3d6 attribute gen, sometimes 4d6.
1d100 roll high for fighters with 18 Strength.

Palladium uses ...
1d20 roll high (attacks, saves)
1d100 roll low (skills)
XdY damage
1d100 tables
1dX tables
2dX tables
Xd6 attribute gen (Humans 3d6, other races vary).

Even to this day, most games use two different rolling modes minimum: to hit and damage are usually separate. The only exceptions I recall are Fudge and Fate. And some variations of Fate have a second, and a fairly unusual one at that: cross index numbers of '+' vs '-' on a 5x5 table (0-4 each axis, triangular). Most also have 1 or 2 table styles; some have many combinations of dice rolls for tables.

Dice mechanics are almost never going to be unique in and of themselves. How they're used may be.

 

[pemerton]

GURPS allows players to buy Allies and Contacts, and (in 3R, at least) not specify them until using them.

Now that you mention this, I've also remembered the yakuza class ability in Oriental Adventures.

And slightly orthogonal to that - I undertsood @Hussar's question to be about what individualtes RPG mechanics. I think that mechanics can be individuated at least in part by effect - I think that player-side NPC-establishing mechanics are significnalty distinctive from other mechanics even if they use similar procedural levers (like points-buy in GURPS, level gain in Oriental Adventures or an ability/attribute check in Burning Wheel and Traveller). The fact that palyer-side NPC-establishing mechanics are not unique to any particular RPG doesn't contradict this point.