Obtrusive mechanic details?

[sirogit]

It's to my understanding that several games have considering using certain mechanics, but didn't include them in the game as it would slow the game down to a certain degree.

One example would be compatibility issues. Such as how weapons work against certain armors. To do this, in an environment where you had different weapons types switching with different armor types, everytime a character strikes someone you'd have to check a table for the result, which is why I think alot of games don't include this.

Are there other examples of mechanics that are just obtrusive to implement in most roleplaying-game designs, or do you think that it's all dependant on situation and no mechanic is not impossible to implement in a game smoothly if it's given enough priority in design?

[Doctor Xero]

Well, I recall the ongoing gamers joke that no one had ever used the AD&D combat system in full because it was simply too unwieldy.

Doctor Xero

[Harlequin]

More seriously, I'd argue the second option you list.  That if it's important enough, there's a way to do anything in a manner that is core, and smooth.

Clever mechanics are infinite.

Weapon/armour compatibility, for example.  An extreme example: every weapon gets rated for separate effectiveness against every armour type, and armour layering and/or hit locations are present.  Nightmare of chart lookup.  So you make code wheels like in those old video games, where you dial in the weapon and the armour type, with several armour wheels for layering, and the result in the little window is your modifier.  Then you build the system around this, making the wheel serve as your randomizer (six little windows open up, and a spinner on top), or your modifier engine (+1 advantage is equivalent to a one-point rotation of wheel X), or whatever.  You layer duties on top of that one device, which is optimized for making the element that could be obtrusive into something intrinsic instead.

I think the basic trick is not just to focus on it... it's to make it unobtrusive because it's the essential action being taken, it is the foundation of everything else.

My $0.02CDN, anyway.  Really, I find coming up with those sorts of foundation mechanics to be one of the most fun parts.

- Eric

[Mike Holmes]

I think Eric has it essentially. Basically there's only so much "effort" available in play. That has to be parcelled out across all the activities. If you try to implement lots of different activities simultaneously, each can get diluted to the point where they're not individually very interesting. It's the idea of focus. What is the game about. Does the rule really add to that, whatever that focus may be. Or was it added just because, if given infinite time to play, it would make for an interesting side diversion.

This is always a consideration - people seem to think that there's some sumum bonum of what must be included in an RPG. But in fact, given a particular game focus, anything is possible to eliminate, and anything is possible to deal with in more detail. It's always a choice. You can't have everything, so you must narrow to some fun set of things to do with the game in question. The question of what to detail and what not to is a critical one.

Like Eric said, one could make a game all about armor and weapon combinations, where such things are part of the central focus. But then it shouldn't have lots of details about something like religion. I'm seeing some sort of gladiator game or something...

Mike

[John Kim]

One example would be compatibility issues. Such as how weapons work against certain armors. To do this, in an environment where you had different weapons types switching with different armor types, everytime a character strikes someone you'd have to check a table for the result, which is why I think alot of games don't include this.

Are there other examples of mechanics that are just obtrusive to implement in most roleplaying-game designs, or do you think that it's all dependant on situation and no mechanic is not impossible to implement in a game smoothly if it's given enough priority in design?

Well, I've played RoleMaster which has this as an integral part of its design.  Each weapon has its own chart that is different for all the armor types.   If everyone has a copy of their weapon charts on hand in play, it was pretty playable.  However, lack of organization can easily make this disastrous.  For example, passing around a single bound copy of Arms Law just doesn't work at all.  

I'm sure there are some things which just aren't playable, but there is room for a lot of innovation and such to get things to work.  Deadlands always struck me as requiring a lot of fiddly bits: i.e. loads of dice, cards, poker chips, colored paper clips.  However, the more I ponder it the more it seems innovative -- compared to old procedures like scribble damage in, erase, add, scribble, and so forth.

[coxcomb]

I think that the important thing is that a game have strong meta-mechanics. If all of the fiddly rules stem from a cohesive underlying mechanic that makes sense, players can put up with a lot.

I have played Champions/Hero System in one form or another for something close to 20 years now. People look at the big manual with all of its rules and are intimidated, but its strength lies in the solid meta-mechanics, the "bones" if you will. Once you master a few concepts, the rest is gravy.

For me, the line between good detailed mechanics and games I won't play lies in resolution. If you have lots of rules in the game that use different resolution mechanics than the core, heads get scratched and brows get furrowed.

[Mike Holmes]

For me, the line between good detailed mechanics and games I won't play lies in resolution. If you have lots of rules in the game that use different resolution mechanics than the core, heads get scratched and brows get furrowed.

I agree in principle, but this is a relative thing. That is, from one perspective, each power in Hero System is it's own sub-system. And it's not neccessary - Hero Quest, for instance, handles every potential power with just one rule.

From that POV, Hero System is actually pretty far along the System Depth axis. Which is why I like it - I'm all for systems that you can explore deeply.

OTOH, AD&D3E, even though improved from earlier editions in this way, is still much more fragmented than Hero - each Feat and Spell has it's own potential subsystems.

Mike

[coxcomb]

From that POV, Hero System is actually pretty far along the System Depth axis. Which is why I like it - I'm all for systems that you can explore deeply.

OTOH, AD&D3E, even though improved from earlier editions in this way, is still much more fragmented than Hero - each Feat and Spell has it's own potential subsystems.

Good point, Mike. I hadn't thought it through to that level before. I would still argue that Hero has strong meta-rules going on for most powers. But, I had never associated granularity and meta-rules on the same chart. From that thinking, DD3E fails to excite me because the granularity is slightly higher than ideal for me, while the meta-rules are essentially non-existent (and certainly never overtly expressed).

[Mike Holmes]

I wouldn't say non-existent, but they aren't the sum total of the system. That is, the save/skill roll mechanics are at least similar now. What D&D does is make each Feat have new systems. For example, I just read a feat where an archer can fire multiple arrows (no doubt created in response to the movie Legolas). The system breaks down the points in the combat bonus at which the character can add more arrows. This is precisely the sort of math that's included in the feat that makes each and every feat like it's own Hero System power or advantage.

Note how simple the feat in question is to replicate just by applying the Autofire advantage to your character's archery. In being a single set of rules designed to do anything, the method to do anything becomes both obvious, and legitimized by the game. So you get more with less rules.

HQ does this even moreso, but you lose almost all of the system depth (many do not lament this).

Mike