RPGnet <http://www.rpg.net> 	

<http://www.rpg.net/slib/ads/forward-ad.php?nextURL=http://www.gencon.com&imageURL=http://www.rpg.net/images/ads/genindy2006.gif>

	Reviews <http://www.rpg.net/reviews/> 	Forums <http://forum.rpg.net>

News & Press <http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/press.phtml> 	Columns &

Info <http://www.rpg.net/columns/index.phtml> 	RPG Wiki

<http://wiki.rpg.net> 	RPG Shop <http://shop.rpg.net> 	

<http://www.rpg.net/members/>

      Elements

    Rationales for Mechanics (or the Case for Designer's Notes)

*by Brian Gleichman*

Jan 14,2003

    Rationales for Mechanics /(or the Case for Designer Notes)/

Why do rpgs use mechanics? Such a simple question, but one with such

complex answers. It seems obvious that those answers would be key in the

design process or in the judging of an existing game. After all, it's

only by way of knowing your needs that you can chart the nature and

placement of mechanical systems properly in such a way that the game

meets the desired goals.

Sadly it seems very common for rpg designers of the current day

(especially in the free or small print world) to skip right by that

question. It is painfully common for me to receive what is in effect a

blank stare upon quizzing a game designer as to the reasons and

rationales behind their design. Typically the only response is "I was

looking for something different" and "It does what I wanted it to do",

without being able to express what was different, or what it is doing.

The end result is I receive in answer a jumble of words typically tossed

on the back cover of a book as basic marketing ("Powerful yet simple

mechanics!", "Yes it's a floor wax and a desert topping!").

With this as the common response, there is little reason to wonder that

mechanics in many games seem almost pointless- seemly existing often

just because other games have included them. The result is typically a

distraction from (or misinterpretation of) the purpose of the game,

reducing what could have been a powerful design to yet another rpg that

will sit on the shelf.

Let's take a moment to consider some important and common rationales,

just so we're on the same page. I don't think these are by any means the

only reasons, but they are at the very least reasons every designer

should consider his mechanics in the light of.

      I. Limiting Player Options

If any single rationale could claim to hold prominence in game design,

it would be this one. Why can't my 1st level /Age of Heroes/ fighter

kill an ancient red dragon with his penknife? Because the combat rules

make that all but impossible as a core requirement of design.

The natural result of any mechanic is to limit options. What those

options are limited to however determines the actual rationale for the

mechanic. In this specific case, the reason is to prevent specific

player actions and choices because they are unsuited to the intended

purpose of the game.

Advancement rules are typically guided by this rationale. The player

gets *X* amount of power within the game for *Y* amount of effort, not

no effort at all. Requiring a certain Strength level to break down a

specific door is yet another example while falling damage is yet another

(for those games limiting a character's ability to jump off 40 foot

walls to reach a battle).

      II. Providing Meaningful Player Choices

The classic example here is combat mechanics (a subject I've already

spent some time on in my previous /Elements of Tactics/ article). The

idea is to present a complex and diverse enough set of choices in order

to make the decisions of the player important in determining the outcome

of the game events.

      III. Inspiring Player Action

Examples of these are the Sanity rules from /Call of Cthulhu/ which

provide a nudge of when and what type of insanity the player is struck

with, but leave the exact details of expressing it up to the player and GM.

Psychological and Drama mechanics are normally created with this

rationale in mind, to respectively inspire role-play and story creation.

      IV. Replacing Player Choice

These mechanics are intended to flat out replace decisions by a player

or GM.

Single roll combat resolutions are typically this type of mechanic, the

idea is to remove any tactical choices beyond that of the decision to

engage in battle (and sometimes even that isn't offered). Another

example is the use of straight up 'social' skills like 'bribe' and the

like. The concept is to remove choices and actions from extensive play

that are felt to be either beyond the ability of the players or outside

the focus of the game.

Another way of looking at these mechanics is as a simple and quick

method to resolve something so that the game can go forward. Removing

significant player input is perhaps the fasted way to achieve that goal.

      V. Provide an Illusion

Some mechanics exist to aid in suspension of disbelief. Thus a game may

include detailed currency rules because the players have a hard time

believing that everyone in the world uses the same coins.

Some mechanics provide an illusion of Rationale II above. A typical

example is providing a wide range of combat maneuvers that suggest a

good selection- but upon using some math it's revealed that a single one

of the provided maneuvers is always the best choice. Sometimes this is a

result of failed design, at other times it's done on purpose (often

using dice pools mechanics in order to make the illusion more difficult

to pierce).

There are other possible reasons of course. I'm sure you can add a few

with a little bit of thought.

Once one knows the rationale for a mechanic, it becomes much easier to

determine the Layer of Design it applies to as well as its form.

Rationale IV mechanics for example tend to be simpler than Rationale II

systems by nature.

There's just one gotcha to keep in mind. A little thing called the 'the

eye of the beholder'.

Remember Rationale III above, a little thing about inspiring player

action? Most of the time I see such mechanics I'm not inspired. Instead

I see a Rationale IV mechanic- something that takes my choices away in

order to meet a goal of the game design (in the case of /Call of

Cthulhu/, it's enforcing the genre concept that everyone goes insane- a

type of railroading with respect to the role-playing of a PC).

Here's another example- Rationale II mechanics become little more than

Rationale V mechanics if the players can't grasp the actual effects of

choices in the system (dice pools tend to cause this effect by making

probability determination exceedingly difficult).

Take a few mechanics from a favorite game of your own and try fitting

them into each of the above rationales. With a little bit of work and a

talent for seeing things though the eyes of others- you may be surprised

how many rationales a single mechanic can fit in.

So in the end you may design a wonderful game, one that has developed

mechanics that fit their reasons for use at every point. But in the end

the final result may be viewed by others in a completely different light

than what you intended.

But all is not lost. The solution to this sad state of affairs is right

in the subtitle to this article.

Designer Notes.

Write them. Spend as much time and effort on them as you did in the

design of your game- for they determined the design of your game. Put

them directly in the book or on your website. Explain why you selected

the mechanics you did, what they do in your game, why you rejected other

possibilities.

You'll achieve four important outcomes.

First, you'll produce a better game. One tailored to your needs and

perfect for the type of play you desired.

Second, you'll provide the best guide there is to how the game was meant

to be played. And you'll do it in a way far better than the typical

stilted 'example of play' fiction.

Third, you'll define for the reader the terms on which your work is to

be judged, so that in that judging they are not looking for a game you

never designed. It is much better to hear "Even if I don't care for the

style, Game X does what it intends almost perfectly" instead of "This

games sucks".

And fourth, I won't get a blank stare when I ask you what makes your

game different or what you were trying to achieve. For not only will you

be able to answer that question, you've already written it for me

meaning the only thing I'll bother you about is the details of your

vision. And isn't the details of the designer's vision the reason for

making a game in the first place?

      What do you think? <http://trio.rpg.net/pf/list.php?f=101>

Go to forum! <http://www.rpg.net/pf/list.php?f=101>

RPGnet <http://www.rpg.net> 	

<http://www.rpg.net/slib/ads/forward-ad.php?nextURL=http://www.gencon.com&imageURL=http://www.rpg.net/images/ads/genindy2006.gif>

	Reviews <http://www.rpg.net/reviews/> 	Forums <http://forum.rpg.net>

News & Press <http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/press.phtml> 	Columns &

Info <http://www.rpg.net/columns/index.phtml> 	RPG Wiki

<http://wiki.rpg.net> 	RPG Shop <http://shop.rpg.net> 	

<http://www.rpg.net/members/>

 Available Forums

* About the Industry <index.php?f=4>*

	  Forum Folder

     Topics relating to the industry, ranging from game creation through

    business.

* Columns <index.php?f=2>*

	  Forum Folder

     Individual discussions for the RPG columns

* Outside RPGnet <index.php?f=82>*

	  Forum Folder

     Forums for discussion of specific things outside RPGnet

* RPGnet <list.php?f=5>*

	  Posts: *118469*    Last Post: *02-01-2006 06:30*

     General discussion about the game industry and where it's going,

    and other topics RPGnet readers would enjoy discussing. 

* Tangency <list.php?f=61>*

	  Posts: *40163*    Last Post: *01-04-2002 19:24*

     Soapboxes, Personal stories, Rants and Dialogs. Keep it friendly,

    folks! 

* The RPGnet Awards <list.php?f=84>*

	  Posts: *235*    Last Post: *05-20-2004 18:07*

     Nomination forum for the RPGnet Awards

* Trouble Tickets <list.php?f=57>*

	  Posts: *741*    Last Post: *01-03-2002 19:00*

     Please let us know any problems with the site. Missing pages, bad

    code, tacky color schemes-- whatever you think is broken. We'll read

    this and fix things. Thanks!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Previous columns

    * Elements of Strategy </news+reviews/columns/elements11feb03.html>

      by Brian Gleichman, 11feb03

    * Rationales for Mechanics (or the Case for Designer's Notes)

      </news+reviews/columns/elements14jan03.html> by Brian Gleichman,

      14jan03

    * Layers of Design </news+reviews/columns/elements11dec02.html> by

      Brian Gleichman, 11dec02

    * Elements of Tactics </news+reviews/columns/elements01nov02.html>

      by Brian Gleichman, 01nov02

    * Elements of Complexity

      </news+reviews/columns/elements20sep02.html> by Brian Gleichman,

      20sep02

      Other columns </news+reviews/columns.html> at RPGnet

[ Read FAQ <http://forum.rpg.net/faq.php> | Subscribe to RSS

<http://www.rpg.net/rss.phtml> | Contact Us <mailto:www@rpg.net> |

Advertise with Us <http://www.rpg.net/ads/info.phtml> ]

Copyright © 1996-2006 RPGnet & individual authors, All Rights Reserved

RPGnet® is a registered trademark of Skotos Tech Inc., all rights reserved.