Does anyone else distinguish between System and Mechanics?

[Jeph]

System is defined as the means by which the group agrees to imagined events during play.

Or at least, that's waht Vincent, Ron, and everyone else seems to agree on. However, when I look at that definition, I immediately thing 'mechanics.' To me, mechanics are . . . well . . . the means by which the group agrees to imagined events during play.

And when I think System, I then think a level deeper. When I think mechanics, I think of how you roll the dice, draw the card, pick the stone, or spend the points. When I think system, I think of the names of the attributes, if there are attributes, how combat is determined, metagame player-control methods, use of special abilities, provisions for die rolls--in essence, what makes two games with "the same dice" different, if you take away the Color.

As an example, let us use d20. Let us compare DnD, and Star Wars d20. They have the same mechanic. However, DnD uses Hit Points, while Star Wars uses Vitality Points/Wound Points. This is an example of the same mechanics, different system. Now, look at DnD's fire-n-forget spellcasting, and SWd20's Skill based Force powers that cost Fatigue to use. Same mechanics, different system.

I often find myself typing "Yes, but what are the systems?" only to realize that no one else might know what I'm talking about. Am I the only one who makes this distinction? To others, are the words 'mechanics' and 'system' interchangeable? Do they mean something completely different?

-Jeff S.

[Le Joueur]

System is defined as the means by which the group agrees to imagined events during play.

Or at least, that's what Vincent, Ron, and everyone else seems to agree on. However, when I look at that definition, I immediately thing 'mechanics.' To me, mechanics are . . . well . . . the means by which the group agrees to imagined events during play.

I'm on record as being a dissenter.

While I agree that the 'communicative' aspect of the mechanics is important, I believe that the 'participatory' and 'inspirative' aspects are more important (but not that the 'communicative' aspects are any less vital).  To me, mechanics ensure your rights to participate in play.  Then they act to inspire play to a certain 'creative agenda.'  And finally, must also make communication of play events more efficient.

Oh, and as far as the Lumpley Principle, I believe that "system" means "mechanics."  To me a publishable game is a system of mechanics, setting, creative agenda, play directions, and presentation (perhaps more, I'll need to consider it).  A bunch of these elements thrown together does not a game make; only when they interrelate does it become a 'system.'

But that's just me.

Fang Langford

[Valamir]

Perhaps I take a more traditional view but to me mechanics are parts of a system.  I mean the very definition of a system pretty much requires it to be made up of parts, and mechanics are one of those parts.

roll a d20+skill+attribute modifer => Challenge Rating is a mechanic.

The combination of rules that determine how a character obtains skills and attributes and how CR is decided is a system.  One might break a system down into sub systems like Character Creation System, Resolution System, Advancement System, but those are just collections of related mechanics within the umbrella of the overall game system.

The overall game system includes things that may not even be recognized as specific mechanics or rules

Aside:  I generally do distinguish mechanics from rules.  Mechanics comes from the same root as machine.  A machine must actually DO something.  A rule on the other hand can simply set a parameter or identify a variable.

I would argue for example that the instructional text of the game book that provides direction for how players and GMs interact with each other...even if those interactions are never actually explicitly quantified with mechanics or limited by rules, constitutes part of the system.  It is the glue that brings everything together as it were.  IMO one of the great weaknesses of many systems is that the glue provided is pretty weak and relies largely on the play group to Bring their Own...I'd call it BYOG if that didn't sound so corny.

One might go even farther and suggest that the art and layout to the extent that they help establish the mood of the game and to the extend that the mood of the game is of particular importance to play may be part of the system.  Clearly Exalted and Nobilis can make a good claim in this direction.  Would game sessions of Exalted contain all of the fun over the top wuxia action, if not accompanied by the fun over the top wuxia art that helps establish what play should look like?  Would Nobilis be Nobilis and play the same if the rules had been written like a college text book instead of being full of flowery purple poetics?  I suggest the answer is no and that these things then are also part of an overall game system.

[jdagna]

And when I think System, I then think a level deeper. When I think mechanics, I think of how you roll the dice, draw the card, pick the stone, or spend the points. When I think system, I think of the names of the attributes, if there are attributes, how combat is determined, metagame player-control methods, use of special abilities, provisions for die rolls--in essence, what makes two games with "the same dice" different, if you take away the Color.

All of the examples you give for System seem to fit neatly into the "means by which the group agrees to imagined events during play."  What else are "metagame player-control methods" except that definition of System?

For example, what if a game consisted of a single rule? "The GM's job is to tell everyone a story."  This is a System (at least by the above definition), but I wouldn't consider it to be Mechanics by any means.  Mechanics are part of the System that (to my way of thinking) ideally provide an objective process.  Using the above example, we might introduce mechanics to decide who the GM is.  "Roll a d6.  Whoever get the highest number is the GM for an hour."  Now we have added a Mechanic to the System, with a specific process and an objective interpretation.

Also, to my way of thinking, you examples of "same mechanics, different system" are really same system, different mechanics.  The d20 System encapsulates a lot of common elements, with Mechanics that can be swapped around or changed as desires.  

Are you trying to say that Mechanics are equivalent if they solve the same problem, even if they do it differently?  If so, I think you've got an interesting idea going, but I'd recommend looking for a word that doesn't have so many pre-existing connotations.

[M. J. Young]

Jeff, I don't think I see what you're saying in the examples you give.

I think I can see Justin's example all right, that "The GM's job is to tell everyone a story" is in some sense a system without any mechanics; but I'm not sure we are using the word "system" the same way. That is, I think that in the common context here we mean "game system" when we say "system".

I think of names of attributes as part of the mechanics; they're the labels by which the numbers are accessed. You could say, "If you want to lift something heavy, roll d20 and compare the result to the first number on your sheet." Calling that first number "strength" provides a convenient way to identify it and facilitates remembering which number to use for that situation, but as such the label is part of the mechanics, the name of the number used.

I'm not sure what you mean by "how combat is determined". Its resolution is clearly based on mechanics. Its initiation is also in a sense based on mechanics--the mechanics that determine under what circumstances two units of play are positioned such that they can recognized each other and interact, and when those interactions become hostile.

If "meta-game player control methods" means techniques used to control the players, I think those might be social level. Social interactions designed to influence game results outside what the rules allow are not part of the mechanics, but they aren't really part of the system either--they're interactions between people. No game I know says that if Jeff won't agree to let you kill the dragon with your dagger you should threaten to leave him without a ride home, or that you should refuse to pass the chips to a player who isn't playing properly. If that means (as I think it does) mechanics which give players control over the game situation through means outside the ordinary abilities of their characters--well, they're mechanics.
Use of special abilities is always controlled by some mechanic, as far as I've ever seen. It may be a special mechanic, but it's still a mechanic.

What is provisions for die rolls? If it means under what circumstances does someone roll the dice, that's clearly mechanics.

Now, maybe you're trying to distinguish a core engine from variations or peripherals, and I can see the importance of such a distinction. Poker and Bridge have entirely different core engines; Bridge and O Heck have a very similar engine, but different peripherals. I'd say that D&D3E and D20 Star Wars have the same core engine with different peripherals. The peripherals are still mechanics, and thus still system.

At least, that's how I understand it.

--M. J. Young

[Jared A. Sorensen]

It's like anything else. The mechanics are how it works. The system is what works. The system is photosynthesis. The mechanics involve how sunlight is converted to energy.

[Alan]

I don't see any difficulty differentiating rpg system and rpg mechanics, especially if we take a moment to look at the meaning of the words.

System means an interlocking, interacting set of things.  A mechanic is a discrete procedure.  Thus, the system is the sum total of the mechanics and other rules.  A system sets a number of mechanics up in relation to each other, producing a specific kind of experience for the players.

(edited for clarity)

[lumpley]

Insofar as I retain any proprietorship over the Lumpley Principle:

For the record:

System is how the real live people sitting at the table agree to (including come up with) what happens in actual play, right this minute.

a. The system, thus, is social and real-time.  No game text can encompass a system.  "The GM's job is to tell everyone a story" isn't a system; the system is how the group actually makes it happen.

b. Whether to invoke mechanics, which mechanics to invoke, and how to treat their results are all decisions made by the players moment-to-moment.  They make those decisions according to the system.  

c. Mechanics, thus, may or may not be a big or small part of any given actual play's system.  The system will necessarily include the casual social interactions and extra-game agendas of the players, whatever they are.

How does the group decide what happens?  Mechanics?  GM fiat?  Bribes?  Arguments?  Exchange of favors?  Bullying?  Friendly accomodation?  Compromise?  That's the system.

If you ask me, the crucial lesson of the Lumpley Principle is that you can come up with what happens in play without using mechanics at all, if you wanna.

-Vincent
(Lookie me! I'm a principle!)

[M. J. Young]

I won't quote Lumpley's entire post; most of it is relevant.

It also says, it is an oxymoron to claim that you bought a game system. You can't possibly buy a game system by the definition used in the Lumpley Principle. You can only buy the mechanics and the setting. The system is something that can't be packaged in any way, shape, or form.

I don't think most of us use the word that way. We refer to the D20 system, the D&D system, the GURPS system, the Palladium system, even the Multiverser system. At that point, we're speaking about the stuff that is published. You can't publish what Lumpley calls the System.

So we're in a semantic problem here. If that's what Jeff meant when he started this thread, then O.K., system is more than mechanics, and I took him wrong, and it doesn't mean anything. If on the other hand, as it appears from his post, he is trying to distinguish system as things that are in the book that are not what I call mechanics or setting, I think he's wrong. Everything in the book is part of the mechanics or setting (in a sense, the setting itself is part of the mechanics, the mechanics part of the setting--they're integrated as two parts of one thing we call the game, but distinguishing them from each other is as much our own sensibilities as any reality involved). Either system means "all the mechanics and setting material in the book as interpreted and applied by the group, plus anything else in the social contract that is used to determine outcomes and events" or it means "the mechanics from the book".

I think Lumpley and Jeff are using the word "System" in distinct ways; Jeff is citing Lumpley, but using the term differently.

--M. J. Young