--- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/draft/elements14jan03.txt Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400
@@ -0,0 +1,276 @@
+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.
+