Mechanics are more than just functions

[silva]

Interesting thread from another forum, which I would like to transcribe here.

I hope this isn't too much like theory. I think it's relevant to players and GMs but if not, I'll understand if it gets shut down or moved. I apologize in advance if that happens.

In another thread on the Hero System, there's a discussion about whether the point costs are worthwhile if they don't guarantee balance between characters with the same point totals, and if the point costs of certain abilities can be altered to fit a campaign.

I've also seen discussions on various forums about why certain games are broken because they choose to do things mechanically in ways that could be achieved more efficiently, or faster, or with less die rolling than using other methods.

I was thinking about these issues tonight, and came to the realization that there's more to a game system than pure function. The form that a game takes and the methods that the game uses have an effect on the people playing the game.

If it feels better to you to pick up a handful of dice that model how powerful your effect is, you're going to have more fun with a game that uses a dice pool than you do with a game that uses a d20. If the (possibly) falsifiable sense that a game is balanced because of the point costs of the powers it uses helps you invest in the game, it's a good thing.

I guess my point is, mechanic design doesn't have to be all about utility. There's also psychology to consider. I know this isn't a new thought in game design, and it can lead to some places I personally find obnoxious, but it's worth thinking about.

Thoughts ?

[deaddmwalking]

I think if you're interested in cross-posting, you should at least provide a link to the full discussion on the other forum (below):

http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=28054

My thoughts?

I don't think you have any interest in an honest discussion on this post.

[...You Lost Me]

This is incredibly obvious, not helpful to game design because it's obvious, and does not support your attempts to fellate *World rules.

[PhoneLobster]

Wow. So its going to take a thread cloned across 2 forums but you are just now MAYBE coming to the realization that mechanics might just DO things. Of some kind. If people could just help you out a bit with the concept, which you and Monster Manuel seem to be struggling with in really weird ways.

[Stinktopus]

Thoughts ?

I think you could just find a shadzar quote somewhere to expound on easier than porting over stuff from RPGShite.

That said, those guys have a serious obsession about the various factors in gaming culture that are rotting the minds of the impressionable youth. As such, way too much navel-gazing goes into what a system "does" or "reflects" about/to it's designers/players.

D20 based games frequently have people rolling big handfuls of dice, so his dice pool vs. d20 system comparison is already full of shit.

Generally, psychology seems to interfere with decent game design rather than be shaped by game design. Publishers of ultra-rules-light games are too impressed with themselves to realize that MTP doesn't need a fucking book. The publishers of HERO admit that their point buy system doesn't make any fucking sense and is completely abuseable, but they pat themselves on the back for making a pointlessly complex game because they aren't "catering to the munchkins who need a balanced system to reign them in."

If you go into game design trying to create a "culture" or a "psychology," you need to back the fuck up and remember you're supposed to be facilitating my attempts to imagine sticking a sword up a dragon's ass.

[NineInchNall]

Thoughts ?

That there is aesthetic difference between different mechanical modes is supposed to be revelatory?

Really?

Really?

[silva]

The most glaring example of this for me is Gurps - the thing is really fascinating from a pure "mechanical" point of view, but its roll-under resolution coupled with boring point-buy crearion and bland presentation make it one of the less exciting games ever to play. Imho of course.

I think if you're interested in cross-posting, you should at least provide a link to the full discussion on the other forum (below):

http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=28054

My thoughts?

I don't think you have any interest in an honest discussion on this post.

Thanks for the link Deaddm, I was on a hurry.

[ishy]

Thoughts ?

Why did you create this thread? And what do you want to discuss?

And if you want the topic to be broader:

a typeface can subtly influence us to believe that a sentence is true.

So yeah everything you write, how you write it, what it looks like etc. all influence how people will read your stuff.

[silva]

Why did you create this thread? And what do you want to discuss?

For acknowledging (or not) there are more to a system than supposed mathematical function or that this is a valid principle to making games around ? To discuss different examples of games and rules where this dichotomy can be seen ?

I would argue Castle Falkenstein (with its use of cards to evoke a victorian high-society feel) and Everway (with its use of visionary props) are good examples of games which "systems" are there more to evoke the imagination towards specific themes and sensations than to work as flawless math functions. Can we consider these "psychological systems" ? If so, do you like these kinds of games ?

Also, there was a discussion recently about percentile systems. I would argue its one of the more intuitive types of resolution available, because of its proximity to our day to day affairs - regardless if its function as a resolution system is indeed math efficient or not.

[sabs]

Of course there is more than mathematical function to create a system around. But if your math is fucking stupid, then your game has stupid results.

For example:
Shadowrun or WoD.
You add your stat + your skill dots in dice, and roll against a TN, and count hits.

Supposedly the ranking is:
1) Novice
2) Trained
3) Expert
4) Master
5) Top of Field.

on Knowledge skills it's
1) HS
2) Bachelors
3) Masters
4) Phd
5) Einstein

The cost of those is exponential, in that it costs almost as much to go from 4 to 5, as it did to get to 4.

Seems okay, except that the actual math behind it is freaking stupid.
Firstly, because your skill and stat are weighted the same, there is no difference between someone with a 1 stat, and a 5 skill, and a 5 stat and a 1 skill.
Secondly If 2 people have a 3 stat, and one is an expert, and one is the top of his field. Their variance is 6 dice vs 8. Which in both shadowrun and WoD does not even add up to a single hit difference on an average roll.

There is a mild difference on the chances of failing simple tasks, although the guy with more dice in oWoD was more likely to botch than the guy with less dice. And Medium tasks are basically at the same level.
The Top of his field guy, despite having paid really a lot for his 2 extra points, has almost 0 difference in attempting hard tasks, compared to the guy who is only an expert.

It's a borked system that gives non-intuitive results. It also means, that you cannot guarantee that your character would be willing to attempt, because the variance is so high.

On the D20 system, you have issues that the Rogue quickly makes hide and climb checks in the 30's and 40's.. that noone else in the party can do. This leads to difficulty escalation from the GM. You roll a 29 with your +8 skill, and you're super happy. Except that because 2 people in your party have +15s.. all of the relavant checks are in the 30's.. which you can NEVER accomplish except on a 5% chance.

I draw a random card from a deck might feel like it's neat. But in the end, it's usually a bad way of doing things. Unless, like the Magic the Gathering roleplaying game that was being talked about a while back happens, when you can build the deck to be in your favor.

[PhoneLobster]

For acknowledging (or not) there are more to a system than supposed mathematical function or that this is a valid principle to making games around ?

So your entire point is SO incredibly stupid that it amounts to...

"Some people care about cosmetic rules differences and I don't understand mechanical ones. So is it valid to design rules systems with purely cosmetic goals and no regard to actual mechanical effects?"

NO IT FUCKING ISN'T. Your mechanics will undermine your god damn goals. I have seen this in action with a "rules lite" game designer who set as a cosmetic goal "Awesome action adventures!" then decided that rolling dice pools of various sized dice in variously stupid ways with an in built "gambling" mechanic that seemed fun was how to do it, because hey, those things on their own also seemed cosmetically fun right?

His awesome action adventure team TPKed by literally drowning to death in a regular bath tub. Because the outcome of his crappy math led directly to incredibly stupid large scale unwinnable group failures. This did NOT meet his cosmetic goal of "awesome action adventure" and instead met a cosmetic goal somewhere on the crappy side of "Three Stooges locked alone in a room with a bottle of arsenic".

And that is outright what will happen if you sit down and set purely cosmetic goals and try to achieve them with mechanics selected for purely cosmetic reasons. Because it is utterly definitively obvious that if you don't actually create functional mechanics that actually function in a way that meets your goals you simply are not going to meet them. THE END.

[silva]

Phonelobster, you seem to imply that rules functionality is a 0 or 1 thing - or its perfect or its completely broken. I dont think I agree with that. Specially considering how many systems are there with definite problems but which are definitely playable (Shadowrun, Im looking at you).

I think thats when the "cosmetic goals" come in, in this range where the rules may not be perfect yet are not completely broken. Falkenstein and Eveway are far from perfect rulesets, but by I wouldnt say they're broken at all.

[Voss]

OK, so add a third category, functional. Does it change the discussion in any way?

No?
No. You still have to consider whether the gimmicks, sorry, 'cosmetic goals' (bullshit) are functional in and of themselves. Usually they aren't, so all you've really done is added a new way to fail.

Moving on.

[hogarth]

[..]
In another thread on the Hero System, there's a discussion about whether the point costs are worthwhile if they don't guarantee balance between characters with the same point totals, and if the point costs of certain abilities can be altered to fit a campaign.[..]

I guess my point is, mechanic design doesn't have to be all about utility. There's also psychology to consider. I know this isn't a new thought in game design, and it can lead to some places I personally find obnoxious, but it's worth thinking about.

Thoughts ?

In the context of Champions/HERO and Mutants & Masterminds and other point-buy superhero systems, this is a an issue I've thought about: for powers which are essentially unpriceable without restrictions (like dimensional travel or time travel or the ability to transmute elements), does it make sense to put a price on them? I somewhat agree with the conclusion that putting a point cost on such powers (but with a big caveat for GMs in a sidebar or something) makes sense from the point of view of preserving the feeling of the game (i.e., that any power from the comic books should be on the table as a possibility, and that you shouldn't be getting something for nothing in a point-buy game).

[PhoneLobster]

Phonelobster, you seem to imply that rules functionality is a 0 or 1 thing - or its perfect or its completely broken. I dont think I agree with that.

That is a very odd thing for you to say, since the cloned post you are promoting in this thread strongly relies on the crutch of assuming that the given example of the Hero system points based advancement is basically "already broken, so whatever, people can just do what they like hey?".

In fact the whole concept of "Rules are imperfect, so hey you know people can just do whatever they like with them right?" actually really DOES rely on a binary approach to how you deal with rules design.

Some concept of a gray scale of functionality immediately precludes "hey you know just do what you like" because within any non-binary functionality model absolutely every damn thing you change about your rules is going to make them either more, or less, functional even if it's only by variously sized increments. And you clearly want all choices to be as functional as possible.

Your implied claim that there is some vast and magical world of numerous completely "functionally neutral" cosmetic rules options we could be picking between is pretty fucking bat shit crazy. And utterly at odds with the idea of "non binary functionality".

The second you acknowledge that, yeah actually rolling a dice as your basic resolution mechanic is in SOME measure incrementally more functional than playing a full round of fucking Poker with a customized tarot/playing card hybrid deck you have essentially conceded that bullshit shiny gimmicks do not outweigh the basic need to have a working rule set that functionally meets you actual game play goals.

Specially considering how many systems are there with definite problems but which are definitely playable (Shadowrun, Im looking at you).

I think thats when the "cosmetic goals" come in, in this range where the rules may not be perfect yet are not completely broken. Falkenstein and Eveway are far from perfect rulesets, but by I wouldnt say they're broken at all.

See? You just did it right there again. "Its broken at all, so ANYTHING FUCKING GOES AM I RITE???"

That is a stupid fucking argument.

[ishy]

Why did you create this thread? And what do you want to discuss?

For acknowledging (or not) there are more to a system than supposed mathematical function or that this is a valid principle to making games around ? To discuss different examples of games and rules where this dichotomy can be seen ?

I would argue Castle Falkenstein (with its use of cards to evoke a victorian high-society feel) and Everway (with its use of visionary props) are good examples of games which "systems" are there more to evoke the imagination towards specific themes and sensations than to work as flawless math functions. Can we consider these "psychological systems" ? If so, do you like these kinds of games ?

Also, there was a discussion recently about percentile systems. I would argue its one of the more intuitive types of resolution available, because of its proximity to our day to day affairs - regardless if its function as a resolution system is indeed math efficient or not.

I think I can kind of see where you are coming from.
But here is the thing. It is true for every single thing that the mechanical structure behind it, is not the only thing that influences our perception of it.
Lets grab cars as an example. You can have pretty cars, you can have efficient cars, you can have expensive looking cars. Basically the presentation of the car matters a lot.
You even have cars that you can't drive, but are just used for display purposes.
But if you want to go from A -> B, you want one that can drive.

You are basically talking about function vs form. But you are not stating a specific position, thus I still don't know, what it is you want to discuss.

[PhoneLobster]

You are basically talking about function vs form. But you are not stating a specific position, thus I still don't know, what it is you want to discuss.

Take everything Silva has been spamming this forum with for the last month into account.

It is rapidly evident the plan is to declare that function is clearly meaningless and equal/lesser in importance than form.

Blah blah blah... therefore Apocalypse World.

[Cyberzombie]

It is rapidly evident the plan is to declare that function is clearly meaningless and equal/lesser in importance than form.

Blah blah blah... therefore Apocalypse World.

Apocalypse World doesn't fail because of bad mechanics. It fails on a psychological level. Many people don't like the idea of a story that's constantly in flux and altered by unrelated rolls. It's the style of game that most people are opposed to.

[Username17]

I don't even object to a story being constantly in flux and influenced by unrelated rolls. See: FATE.

I object to a story being constantly in flux and neither my choices nor how well I rolled having any apparent effect. If as a player I could actually make narrative declarations via story stick transfer mechanics or even if rolling "good" made the next story change "good" then there would be some kind of game there. Apocalypse World is not a fucking game. It's not a game of skill, it's not a game of chance. It's watching TV.

-Username17

[Omegonthesane]

I don't even object to a story being constantly in flux and influenced by unrelated rolls. See: FATE.

I object to a story being constantly in flux and neither my choices nor how well I rolled having any apparent effect. If as a player I could actually make narrative declarations via story stick transfer mechanics or even if rolling "good" made the next story change "good" then there would be some kind of game there. Apocalypse World is not a fucking game. It's not a game of skill, it's not a game of chance. It's watching TV.

-Username17

You might recall the post where I think Prak mentioned his experience of stringing together a narrative from a bunch of Smash Brothers matches in which no one had any idea what they were doing, thus inviting comparisons to a dice roll.

Since that example involved "character rolls well" consistently resulting in "character continues existing" it is in fact, sadly, more of a game than Apocalypse World...

As a point of argument - is Foxwarrior's Equality World a game by your definition?

[Cyberzombie]

I don't even object to a story being constantly in flux and influenced by unrelated rolls. See: FATE.

I object to a story being constantly in flux and neither my choices nor how well I rolled having any apparent effect. If as a player I could actually make narrative declarations via story stick transfer mechanics or even if rolling "good" made the next story change "good" then there would be some kind of game there. Apocalypse World is not a fucking game. It's not a game of skill, it's not a game of chance. It's watching TV.

Well if you roll good, then the DM can't introduce complications to bar your path, so there's some chance in it. Though granted, it's not much.

But as a whole, games that don't include fixed obstacles don't get much traction. I'm unfamiliar with FATE, but it's not a big name RPG system. People generally like to have obstacles that make sense, and problems that can be overcome by strategy or tactics, as opposed to having a game totally dictated by the dice and/or the whim of the DM. Even in a freeform game with no rules with a DM who adjudicates everything, the majority of people like to know that there are correct answers and wrong answers.

While playing a game of shared narrative control can be okay for a night or two, psychologically it doesn't have the staying power that obstacle based games do.

[Username17]

As a point of argument - is Foxwarrior's Equality World a game by your definition?

Yes.

Well if you roll good, then the DM can't introduce complications to bar your path, so there's some chance in it.

That's what's so insulting about Apocalypse World proper - the MC actually totally and explicitly can introduce complications to bar your path on a good roll. You "successfully" discover that... there's an army of bears and you cannot possibly win the current encounter. That's a real example in the real book and the author totally stands by it.

-Username17

[Cyberzombie]

That's what's so insulting about Apocalypse World proper - the MC actually totally and explicitly can introduce complications to bar your path on a good roll. You "successfully" discover that... there's an army of bears and you cannot possibly win the current encounter. That's a real example in the real book and the author totally stands by it.

Maybe I'm mistaken about then World games, but I thought that the complications only got introduced on a mediocre roll, not a good one. Like a 10+ is a total success, a 7-9 is success with complications and a 6 or below is a failure.

Is that more or less how AWorld works or did I just read it wrong?

[name_here]

That's how it theoretically works, but the implementation is kind of flaky from even a casual read-through. Like, with some moves, on a 10+ you'll pick three out of four things, and by implication do not get the fourth, and generally not getting all four things is not an unqualified success. For instance, if you seize something by force and get a ten, you pick three of:

you take definite hold of it
you suffer little harm
you inflict terrible harm
you impress, dismay or frighten your enemy

[RobbyPants]

That's what's so insulting about Apocalypse World proper - the MC actually totally and explicitly can introduce complications to bar your path on a good roll. You "successfully" discover that... there's an army of bears and you cannot possibly win the current encounter. That's a real example in the real book and the author totally stands by it.

Maybe I'm mistaken about then World games, but I thought that the complications only got introduced on a mediocre roll, not a good one. Like a 10+ is a total success, a 7-9 is success with complications and a 6 or below is a failure.

Is that more or less how AWorld works or did I just read it wrong?

It's supposed to, but there are two contentious examples in the rules of the game showing them working different than that. One example is the result of a success roll where the party discovers an unwinnable fight. The other is the result of a success, but roll, where the person explicitly fails at their task (they are sneaking, but they are discovered and offered a choice to kill the kid who finds them. Note that being detected is a nominal failure when attempting to not be detected).

Ergo, you can get a soft or hard success, and (by the examples in the book) have the GM flat-out make you fail.