The Forge Archives

The discussion in this thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=7722&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=) has been sidetracked a bit by some disagreement on what constitues a mechanic or not. This seems like an worthwhile topic to discuss.

In that thread, Alexander used the example of:

"I walk across the street."
"Okay."

Vincent says this is Drama mechanic. My question: is it? Mechanics, to me are for resolving disagreements or making decisions. So this is more description than anything else.

Consider:

"I am wearing a blue polo shirt and plaid pants."

Is that Drama? I call that simple description, which probably works very much the same as Drama but perhaps it is a special type of Drama and is worth taking as the special case it is.

Consider further:

"I am wearing a blue polo shirt and plaid pants."
"Oh really? We'll see about that. Make a roll."

I've always used the term to mean some rule by which the players must use step-by-step in order to come to a conclusion about some game matter. Not just resolution mechanics, but anything in which the representational metagame is altered or employed to alter the in-game world in any way.

So, if a player shows up, he gets 10 EXP. That's a mechanic. The EXP is the metagame number that's being altered. It's a simple one step "if..then" mechanic, but it's, well, mechanical. If the rule is, "do what seems best" as in what's referred to as Drama mechanics, that just doesn't seem to be very mechanical to me. If anything, I refer to these as "soft" mechanics. The game doesn't really say how to do things, it only attributes authority in these cases.

That's my take.

Mike

Mike's definition gets my vote.  Seems to be both broad enough to incorporate the great variety of possible mechanics out there, and also discrete enough (the requirement of a specified step by step process) to be identifiable.

One could then easily see how "do whatever seems right" becomes a mechanic by expanding it into a specific series of outlined steps.  Something we did fairly dramatically with Universalis.

So Mike, Ralph, if there's a hexmap with the town laid out and miniatures, and I say "I walk across the street," and the GM says "okay," so I move my little figure across the street, then it's a mechanic?  But without the figure it isn't?

I'm okay with that, if that's where we're drawing the line.

What would you call something like "Vincent's in charge of the fey woods so don't make anything happen there without consulting him"?  Both it and "get 10 exp for showing up" are ways to apportion credibility, that is, ways to come to a consensus about potentially controversial statements.  (Statements like "I stroll through the fey wood and nothing bad happens to me" and "my shoot things skill goes up to 8," in these cases.)

We could say that both are rules.  Then a mechanic is a rule where you manipulate step-by-step some concrete metagame thing.  "Vincent's in charge of the fey woods" and "get 10 exp for showing" are both rules, but only the exp one is a mechanic.  How's that sound?

-Vincent

I'd say moving the little figure still wouldn't be a mechanic, unless you're measuring out how far the little figure can walk, and stuff.  If you just go, "okay, you're here" and plop the little guy down in the new spot, then there's no mechanic involved there.

Other than that little niggle, what's being said here seems to grok with how I'm defining "mechanic" in my head.  A mechanic, then, is basically a rule or set of rules wherein you manipulate some concrete metagame thing in a step-based process.  "Mechanics", then, are the bundle of such rules, in total (or in some subgroup, such as "the mechanics for magic in this game", "the dice-based mechanics" "the diceless mechanics").

A mechanic is a person who builds or repairs machinery.

Can we change the question to "what is a mechanism?" (Okay, I admit I'm rowing against the tide here, but I gotta make at least a token try.)

I like Mike's definition. The proviso that the effect must be to alter the in-game world may be a little too restrictive. For instance, if the rules allow me to pay three Experience Points to buy one Luck point, and I do so, that appears to be a mechanism in operation but it does not directly affect the shared imaginative space; it's metagame-in metagame-out, so to speak.

I share Jack's concern (at least, I infer such a concern from what he's written) that the definition of mechanism not become so broad that it covers all technique. Scene framing per se isn't a mechanism (though mechanics could be applied to it, as in Universalis). Invention of setting on the fly by a GM in no-myth play per se isn't a mechanism (though mechanics could be invented to regulate it; I'm not aware of any published examples but there has been discussion in that direction). A GM answering players' questions based on setting maps and notes isn't a mechanism per se (though mechanics can come into play in specific circumstances, such as when character perception skills are being referred to.)

- Walt

To my mind, mechanics in this context has always been derived from game mechanics, and used in the same way as classical mechanics or quantum mechanics. Namely it is a theory for how the game works.

The only difference is that it is a prescriptive theory, not a descriptive one (it generates the game, rather than describes it.) In this sense a mechanic is a componant of this theory. However, here is where the analogy breaks down. Since this is a prescriptive theory, it is perhaps best to call a mechanic anything which restricts any game using the mechanics. However it is important that it be a restriction for arbitrary games, if it is a purely local restriction it can't be distinguished from a decision. (I usually call the collection of all of these restrictions, constraints.)

So for example, if Jacob says "My character is wearing a flannel shirt." this is not a mechanic. But if this prohibits him from making a contradictory statement and being unconfronted about it, then that prohibition is a mechanic.

I hope that helps,

  -Mendel S.

Yes, the real problem with my definition is that, at some point there are some sort of rules (not that again) or guidelines that aren't mechanics. This seems fine for some purposes, like information like setting. One could see each setting detail as a rule about what must happen, but given the interperetation that must occur, it's not all that useful to think of it in that fashion.

But Drama resolution is where the real problem lies. Once you get to the point where the rule is "GM decides" have you left the realm of rules and mechanics altogether? If so, what are you discussing? It's not setting, really, though it must entail changes to the setting.

In any case, that's why I have the hard/soft spectrum. Vincent's example would be fairly soft mechanics, especially soft if it didn't matter where on the map the character was at (that is, if later, when combat started, you went back in time and used the actual mechanics to figure out a more precise location). Further I like these terms because they describe matters well; Hard mechanics require less interperetation, soft mechanics allow more flexibility.

My current model is [Social Contract[System[Rules[Hard -->Mechanics<--Soft]]]]. Personally, I see rules as comprising the entire system, but I'll some people don't see "GM decides" as a rule. But it still helps to think about Rules as a subset of the sytem in any case. Stated, it says, that people agree to play a game and to make whatever decisions aren't handled by the system in the spirit of the Contract. The system chosen is made up of rules that apportion credibility (LP). Some of these rules are mechanical in nature, ranging from fairly non-mechanical (soft) to very mechanical (hard).

Mike

Cool with me.

That'd make a "freeform" game one in which none (or very few) of the rules are mechanical?  Or at least none are at all hard - I can imagine a freeform game with miniatures, for instance, or the ol' roll 2d6, higher is better.  That's a mechanic but it's all squishy.

-Vincent

Quote from: Jack Spencer JrIn that thread, Alexander used the example of:

"I walk across the street."
"Okay."

Vincent says this is Drama mechanic. My question: is it? Mechanics, to me are for resolving disagreements or making decisions. So this is more description than anything else.

I don't think you're seeing what's implied to be happening there, though.  A lot of the meat of the disagreements that are coming up in this and other discussions is about things which aren't seen (notions of the term "mechanic", unspoken messages between player and GM in provided examples, etc).

I'm going to put some stuff in italics to make it clear what I think is going on in Vincent's example, and why I think he's right in calling it mechanics in operation.

Player: "I walk across the street." Implicit message to GM: I am attempting to walk across the street.  Per the mechanics at work, I understand that you control the environment and can thus interrupt this attempt.
GM: "Okay." Implicit message to Player: I have considered my understanding of the environment in which you are making the attempt to walk across the street, and have come to the decision that it happens without any problems.

One objection I saw in the other thread was declaring that something wasn't a mechanic, it was just a rule.  In my world, a mechanic is a rule or set of rules, period, so this statement is -- for me -- tantamount to saying "that's not a cup of tea, that's a cup of tea."

I think some people want mechanics to involve dice, or rigid rules, and the moment they don't involve dice and don't involve rigid rules, they stop being considered mechanics.  That definitely doesn't fly for me ... because honestly in such a case, that means that Amber Diceless, for example, completely lacks all mechanics -- it's a very unrigid system in most of its places, but for my dollar, I'd say almost all of those places are describing mechanics for play.

I would only add that what I have stated seems to generally agree with what Mike and Ralph have stated. At least, I don't detect any massive disagreement.

Fred, I think you imply an important point.

"I walk across the street."   "Okay" isn't a mechanic, it's an example of play.  The mechanic (if there is one) happens in between the two statements and probably isn't stated out loud.

In your italics, you're basically saying that "The GM has final say on what the characters actually accomplish" is a mechanic.  I tend to feel that isn't a mechanic.  If it is, the concept of mechanic is essentially synonymous with lumpley' definition of system.

Whether it is or not, that situation can have an indisputable mechanic affect it.  In D&D, for example, the player might say "I walk across the street," and the GM checks the character's base speed, his current activity, his movement pace, the distance across the street and any other factors and then says "OK" when he decides there's no problem.

Mechanics are the functional and technical aspects of an activity.

Actually, mechanics is very much a metaphor. When we say the mechanics, the nuts and bolts, of role-playing, and when we speak of an RPG Engine, we are associating engineering and machinery with RPG design.

O.K., bells and lights went off when I read Jack's opening post here, but I contained myself to read the comments of others before responding.

I do agree with Mike's idea of hard and soft mechanics; and I see that Fred is thinking very much along the same lines as I am.

If drama is one of three core types of resolutions, then the use thereof is a mechanism which determines the content of the shared imaginative space. It may do so by apportioning credibility, or by calling for a more mechanical approach involving dice (fortune), score comparisons (karma), or charts (either or both). To say that decisions made without reference to either fortune or karma are not mechanics is to say that "mechanics" specifically means fortune and karma resolution methods, and specifically excludes drama resolution methods. Yet it is equally clear that drama resolution methods are not without rules; they just don't have the kinds of rules that are obviously mechanical, and thus some of us hesitate to call them "mechanics".

If all we're arguing is whether "mechanics" is that subset of rules/system which involves numbers or similar precise determinatives as opposed to being another word for "the rules which determine resolution of events in the imaginative space", then this is pretty much a wasted thread.

If what we want to know is whether what Jack calls "descriptives" imply rules-based resolution, then I'm weighing in to say that drama is as much "mechanics" in that sense as the other two, and his examples do not persuade me that "descriptives" are different from "mechanics" other than in the difficulty of resolving them and the emphasis within play.

Now, to his examples.

Quote from: Jack Spencer JrIn that thread, Alexander used the example of:

"I walk across the street."
"Okay."

Vincent says this is Drama mechanic. My question: is it? Mechanics, to me are for resolving disagreements or making decisions. So this is more description than anything else.

Fred has addressed this extremely well. It is to some degree made more difficult to adjudicate by the absence of any contextual information. Is the street the New Jersey Turnpike just before rush hour, when cars are traveling an average of eighty miles per hour in close formation over twelve lanes? "You'll have to roll for that." Is there a sniper atop one of the buildings, picking off people in the street? "What's your dodge score?" Are we doing this in the midst of an earthquake? "I'll need an agility check." The decision that the character can cross the street without incident is a drama-based decision that no other resolution method is needed. Any time I say you need to roll the dice, I've used my judgment that this situation implicates such a roll; anytime I allow something without a die roll, I've used my judgment that success is automatic. (I could say that you have to roll the dice to cross the street, but any roll you make will be a success; but then, why am I bothering to have you roll?)

Quote from: Jack thenConsider:

"I am wearing a blue polo shirt and plaid pants."

Is that Drama? I call that simple description, which probably works very much the same as Drama but perhaps it is a special type of Drama and is worth taking as the special case it is.

Consider further:

"I am wearing a blue polo shirt and plaid pants."
"Oh really? We'll see about that. Make a roll."

As I said, Jack's examples don't move me.

In this case, when the players says what he's wearing, my feeling as a referee (after, why in the world are you wearing that?) is that I really don't care what you're wearing. But consider it yet further.

"You hear the sound of a gunshot."

"I am wearing my green mottled camouflaged outfit, and move to stand in the trees."

"I'm sorry, when did you put that on?"

"I put it on this morning; I just figured it was a good day for it."

"I'm sorry; you'll have to roll for that."

Now, I'm not saying that I would require such a roll; but the fact that I might require it in a certain circumstance means that my decision to accept whatever you say you're wearing in any other case is a resolution decision, the application of drama resolution to your statement.

Normally we don't care whether you want to say your character is wearing a polo shirt and plaid pants, because frankly we can't see how that can in any way advantage you in any situation; it's really just color. But that is a judgment on the part of the referee. Either he thinks that the impact of that statement is not a serious enough adjustment to the shared imaginative space to require more careful consideration, or he thinks that he will allow the adjustment because it will help the situation in some specific way (such as making you fit in better, or calling attention to yourself).

So yes, the decision to accept any adjustment to the shared imaginative space is an application of the system; and unless you're making fine distinctions between [System[Rules[Mechanics]]], that makes such a decision the use of mechanics.

--M. J. Young

"The rules which determine resolution of events in the imaginative space"

Types of Resolution:

Fortune, Gamist: Dice, Cards
Fortune, Oracle: I-Ching, Runes, Tarot (Note, this is for strictly interpretative oracle resolution, not the gamist application of this)
Resource, Karma
Drama

Is Mechanics  an appropriate metaphor for Gamist and Karma resolution?

Is Oracle and Drama resolution  a different subtype of resolution than these mechanics?

Is "diceless" resolution any non-fortune resolution?

Edited: To pose this as a question.

It seems to me there are many different ways to skin this cat, but here's one way.

Traditionaly RPGs had game rules and game mechanics that formed a game system. In these game systems various objects (characters, monsters, magic items, etc) were assigned descriptors (characteristics, skills, hit points, XP value, etc), and the game rules defined how these descriptors interacted with each other. The net result was the game system.

There were always some descriptors that were not part of the game system, such as character eye colour (although some games formalised even this). There were also rules that weren't related to descriptors, but to the way the game should be run at a social level. These were sometimes presented as game rules, but often they were given as advice. I'd put these into the social contract and seperate them from game system.

Game system has to do with formal descriptors and their interactions. In this sense a hex grid is an environmental descriptor. If there are rules for how characters move through the environment in terms of distances, turns, grids, etc these are all part of the game system. If there are no rules for movement, then any adjudication of movement by the referee is not mechanical, it is adjudicated by the referee who's power to do so is determined by the social contract.

So personaly, I distinguish between rules and mechanics that make up the game system, and rules and mechanics that make up the social contract. Though I suppose it's possible that the dividing line between game system and social contract may differ somewhat from game to game, or even group to group.


Simon Hibbs

I've always thought that the point of using the word mechanic was to distinguish a certain kind of rule. Namely, rules for resolving an action through some process known (in principle) to all parties in advance and applied more or less without active negotiation (Mike's hard mechanics). So, in light of this view, it seems to me that the first question is: Should we have a separate term for such rules? I would answer this question in the affirmative. The more terms we give precise definitions to, the easier it will be to discuss the underlying ideas. Jargon aids discussion of technical discussions, that's why so many professions develop their own jargon. Perhaps the site should have lexicon/dictionary of its jargon (I'm not serious about this because I don't want to do the work and I fear long fights over what the words should mean). Then there's Walt's (implicit) question: What should we call this? I say the name does matter as long as we all recognize its meaning.

Quote from: HMTSo, in light of this view, it seems to me that the first question is: Should we have a separate term for such rules? I would answer this question in the affirmative. The more terms we give precise definitions to, the easier it will be to discuss the underlying ideas.

I agree, but with the caveat that I think we should try to stick with generaly accepted meanings for our terms where they exist, rather than redefine them in order to fit in with one theoretical framework or another.

For example, most roleplayers probably have a pretty good idea what they mean when they talk about the game mechanics for this or that game. Therefore I'm skeptical of definitions of 'game mechanics' that deviate significantly from what most roleplayers would expect. I have no problem with coming up with new terms for things that currently aren't commonly discussed.


Simon Hibbs

After mulling this over, I realized that I *had* been looking at it kinda-sorta this way.

NOTE: I'm posting because I think this is an interesting perspective--not because I think it's more correct than what's been said here. I think I agree pretty much with Mike.

Rules: laws of the game--conceptual.
Mechanics: the 'cops'--the enforcers of the law.
GM: The Judge who makes the final ruling on what the "cops" say.

So there might be a rule that says you roll for damage.

The Mechanic might dictate that all expertly aimed shots hit the head and only the head (this came up in a discussion of Godlike--I don' t know if it's true or not)

The GM "throws out the arrest" when ruling that a sniper can, with a shot good enough to be a head-shot, aim for the leg instead.

Now, taking this further:

Rule: GM controls world, assigns difficulty factors, etc. which mechancis resolve.
Situation: player crosses the street
Mechaincs: Not invoked because the GM deems it unnecessary.

Situation: Player crosses the street during earthquake.
GM (under rule) invokes call for Agility roll.
Mechanic: roll dice under Agility to succeed

The difference here (the significant difference) is that a rule is the spirit of the law (so to speak) and the mechanic is the letter and the GM is the arbiter between the two.

Now, there is something a bit foggy in that it's "a rule" that dictates the GM responsible for "applying rules" which is circular. I'm not sure if that invalidates the idea--or if it's just an interesting special case (a bootstrap rule).

-Marco

M.J., I agree with you:

QuoteSo yes, the decision to accept any adjustment to the shared imaginative space is an application of the system; and unless you're making fine distinctions between [System[Rules[Mechanics]]], that makes such a decision the use of mechanics.

I'm comfy letting the people who think there should be a distinction say what that distinction is.

-Vincent

QuoteThe proviso that the effect must be to alter the in-game world may be a little too restrictive. For instance, if the rules allow me to pay three Experience Points to buy one Luck point, and I do so, that appears to be a mechanism in operation but it does not directly affect the shared imaginative space; it's metagame-in metagame-out, so to speak.

EXP and Luck would both be examples of what I'd call representational metagame. That is, there's some symbology that goes with them, rather than being merely a non-enumerated metagame tag like "cool". Sure, characters in Feng Shui are cool, but there are no specific mechanics that reinforce this (one might say that the other mechanics as a gestalt work to do this, but each mechanic is specific to itself). So I'm not forgetting these things as mechanics. It's just hard to come up with a precise description of them.

BTW, Celestial Mechanics refers to the step by step explanation of the principles by which planetary movement can be determined, right? Mechanics in an RPG are the methods which we use in a step by step fashion to determine what happens to bodies in an RPG. No? You're the expert here, do I have something wrong?

Mike

Mike,

Celestial Mechanics is not a procedure, it is a theory. A given kind of mechanics need not be algorithmic (in the sense of a procedure being determineable), for example Statistical Mechanics. As a theory it provides constraints on the possible spaces in which the theory can be considered.

Much of the confusion about the word mechanic in this context comes from the intuition that it is a componant of a theory (the game mechanics). While there may be a nature way to break a theory down, this is by no means unique, hence simply by referring to distinct componants confusion creeps in.

This is also part of the reason that there isn't a concesus to build a new definition from. Especially since the question of whether system and mechanics are separable is based not only on the chosen definition of mechanics, but also on the defition of system.

I hope that is food for thought,

  -Mendel S.

Excellent points Mendel.

QuoteA given kind of mechanics need not be algorithmic (in the sense of a procedure being determineable), for example Statistical Mechanics. As a theory it provides constraints on the possible spaces in which the theory can be considered.

Actually as I was writing my post above, I realized this. Which is why I asked Walt. But does this preclude mechanics from being algorithmic? I don't think so. And in any case, I think it's a Fait Accompli at this point. People use the term enough that it has meaning by etymological drift due to it being jargon. As Jargon I think it works fine as Mechanics and needent be changed to mechanism.

I'm guessing that Walt was merely pointing out the pedantic semantics of the situation in order to inform us of the potential problem in the implicit analogy. Or do you think that it really needs changing Walt?

Mike

I think its to late to change this term, for the following reason:

Quote from: simon_hibbs... we should try to stick with generaly accepted meanings for our terms where they exist, rather than redefine them in order to fit in with one theoretical framework or another ...

Examine these sentences.

The mechanics of football are learned with practice.
The mechanism of football is learned with practice.

The first sentence is clearly describing the particulars of a system.
The second is explicitly metaphoric of a machine.

Mechanics is the functional and technical aspect of an activity.

A mechanism is a sytem of parts that operate or interact like those of a machine.

The entymology of both words comes from means. The means by which a system operates. Mechanics follows the original entymology while mechanism is the mechanics of machinery, the means by which physical machinery operate.

Now examine:

The mechanics of the solar system.
The mechanism of the solar system.

The first is the means of a solar system, I imagine gravity. The second is metaphoric of machinery and invokes the enlightenment-era notions of a clockwork universe.

I have deviated from my initial outlook on this.

Now applying this to RPG Theory. The mechanics of an RPG is the means by which the RPG system operates. By this illustration, I can imagine submechanics and types of mechanics.

Within resolution mechanics, we have different types. Resolution mechanics being, "the rules which determine resolution of events in the imaginative space".

Types of Resolution Mechanics:

Fortune: Dice, Cards
Oracle: I-Ching, Runes, Tarot (Note, this is for strictly interpretative oracle resolution, not the gamist application of this)
Karma
Drama (I would be interested in examining the mechanics of drama.)[/b]

I am leaning towards the word Method myself which has a similar meaning without the connotations of clockworks and meshing gears.

Quote from: Mike Holmes

QuoteThe proviso that the effect must be to alter the in-game world may be a little too restrictive. For instance, if the rules allow me to pay three Experience Points to buy one Luck point, and I do so, that appears to be a mechanism in operation but it does not directly affect the shared imaginative space; it's metagame-in metagame-out, so to speak.

EXP and Luck would both be examples of what I'd call representational metagame. That is, there's some symbology that goes with them, rather than being merely a non-enumerated metagame tag like "cool". Sure, characters in Feng Shui are cool, but there are no specific mechanics that reinforce this (one might say that the other mechanics as a gestalt work to do this, but each mechanic is specific to itself). So I'm not forgetting these things as mechanics. It's just hard to come up with a precise description of them.

I agree that EXP and Luck are examples of representational metagame. (I would have said "metagame state elements" but the meaning is exactly equivalent.) My point was much narrower (and, really, less important) than questioning that idea would have been. I was questioning only the "...to affect the in-game world" part of the proposed definition, by pointing out that some game mechanisms affect only the representational metagame itself.

QuoteBTW, Celestial Mechanics refers to the step by step explanation of the principles by which planetary movement can be determined, right? Mechanics in an RPG are the methods which we use in a step by step fashion to determine what happens to bodies in an RPG. No? You're the expert here, do I have something wrong?

Um, based on what credentials am I the expert here??? I deny any accusations of expertise. :)

"Step by step" does capture the quality of game mechanics that I believe separates it from non-mechanical technique. However, it may be too vague. (I can picture someone describing a step by step thought process that they use to make decisions such as what facts to narrate after a successful roll in Donjon -- but I don't regard the actual making of that decision as a game mechanism.)

To me, the key characteristic of a game mechanism is the specificity of the outcome. Whether the outcome is binary as in success/failure (a to-hit roll), go/no-go (a wandering monster roll, or determining whether or not an action is take 10 eligible), or A/B outcome (a Shadows roll), or yields a specific result (a critical hit piercing the left lung), or a metagame result such as a determination of who gets to narrate (a Universalis auction), a game mechanism yields an outcome within a constrained range. The processes by which players make decisions feeding into the mechanism (such as inventing the two possible outcomes for a Shadows roll) or applying its results (such as narrating facts for one's successes after a Donjon roll) are not themselves game mechanisms, any more than a car's driver is a steering mechanism or the passage of time is a clock mechanism. The possibility of broadening the definition of game mechanics to include player decision-making doesn't appeal to me, that's where it departs from the current conventional usage of the phrase. (I'm trying to capture the common usage of "game mechanics" in a definition, not expand it.)

My preference for "mechanism" over "mechanic" to refer sigularly to a specific procedure during play is just a minor bit of word usage fussiness. "This game has a great mechanic for initiative." Really? The game comes with a person in greasy overalls who tells you who has the initiative? This is notwithstanding the meaning of "mechanics" which (assuming it's not referring collectively to the folks who work at the garage) is quite correct for referring to a complete coherent set of mechanisms and/or the principles underlying their operation. In other words, the singular instantiation of "mechanics" as in quantum or celestial (but not the folks at the garage) is "mechanism," not "mechanic." Electron tunneling could reasonably be described as a quantum mechanism, but it ain't no quantum mechanic and you'll never hear a physicist refer to it as one.

- Walt

Quote from: Walt FreitagThe possibility of broadening the definition of game mechanics to include player decision-making doesn't appeal to me, that's where it departs from the current conventional usage of the phrase. (I'm trying to capture the common usage of "game mechanics" in a definition, not expand it.)

I quite agree, I think it's a mistake to lump in 'the role of the GM' along with the number crunching or procedural mechanics of a game.

My preference for "mechanism" over "mechanic" to refer sigularly to a specific procedure during play is just a minor bit of word usage fussiness.[/quote]

We're all entitled to our preferences, but the word 'mechanic' is a perfectly good adjective, as well as being a noun.


Simon Hibbs

Quote from: Simon HibbsWe're all entitled to our preferences, but the word 'mechanic' is a perfectly good adjective, as well as being a noun.

Could I see an example sentence? "Mechanic" as an adjective is pretty archaic. I'd say it's somewhat less than perfectly good, as it's likely to be confusing and there are unambiguous adjective forms (mechanical, mechanistic, and the slang combining form mech/a as in mech-war or mecha-Godzilla) available.

- Walt

Quote from: Walt FreitagI agree that EXP and Luck are examples of representational metagame. (I would have said "metagame state elements" but the meaning is exactly equivalent.) My point was much narrower (and, really, less important) than questioning that idea would have been. I was questioning only the "...to affect the in-game world" part of the proposed definition, by pointing out that some game mechanisms affect only the representational metagame itself.

Ah, I see your point. I'm not sure now just what I was trying to avoid with the whole "affects something in-game". I think I was just trying to point out that the representations are in general about something in-game. Not that mechanics can't affect representations entirely in the metagame. This all said, I think I could even imagine a mechanic that was entirely metagame, and had no in-game impact. So I'll drop that proviso, and leave that to the Lumpley Principle to talk about. :-)

QuoteUm, based on what credentials am I the expert here??? I deny any accusations of expertise. :)

You have some MIT degree, right?!? In any case you seem to be speaking from authority. ;-)

QuoteTo me, the key characteristic of a game mechanism is the specificity of the outcome.

Agreed. Actually, I think it's, as stated before, that the process is an algorithm in the proper sense. A particular input gives a particular output (meaning that they're subject to GIGO, and other rules about algorithms).

QuoteIn other words, the singular instantiation of "mechanics" as in quantum or celestial (but not the folks at the garage) is "mechanism," not "mechanic." Electron tunneling could reasonably be described as a quantum mechanism, but it ain't no quantum mechanic and you'll never hear a physicist refer to it as one.

I'm finding this oddly compelling now. It's like my need for people to use Oriented instead of Orientated. Hmm.

Mike

Actually, in everyday usage, mechanics can be used singular or plural. I agree that a mechanic is a worker skilled in making or repairing machines and tools.

In psychology, mechanism means the automatic and consistent response of an organism to various stimuli. This might have an application here too.

Walt, I will respect your quarky use of mechanism as singular for mechanics. If we can come to a consensus on using the quantum mechanics model, I would be thrilled.

Also, method is excellent. Do you mean to use it for means which are not mechanics. Or do you mean to use it for the overall category of mechanics and non-mechanics?

Irregardless of what we call them, here are the things that I believe we are trying to name.

Resolution
A) Resolution Mechanics
A1) Fortune Resolution Mechanics
A2) Karma Resolution Mechanics
B) Drama Resolution Methods (Role-playing Resolution Methods)

For me mechanics are the fortune and karma of a RPG. They are a consistent set of responses. I also think this is common gamerspeak. I think Drama Resolution Methods deserve their own language.

[System[Rules[Resolution]]]

Quote from: Jack Spencer Jr...what constitues a mechanic or not. This seems like an worthwhile topic to discuss.

From the on-line version of the Oxford English Dictionary:

============

mechanic, a. and n.

  B. n.

  II. Senses relating to machines or mechanisms. See also MECHANICS n.

 6. A device, method, means.

 1924 M. W. BECKWITH Jamaica Anansi Stories 122 So lot of men went to the house an' try all sort of mechanic; the chil' wouldn't talk... 1990 Games Rev. Jan. 51/1 This is a neat game mechanic which should have been ripped off by more games designers.

============

Erick

[/b]

So mechanic = method in at least definition. Works for me and it avoids the connotations of machinery.