What is a Mechanic?

[Jack Spencer Jr]

The discussion in this thread 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."

[Mike Holmes]

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

[Valamir]

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.

[lumpley]

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

[Lxndr]

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").

[Walt Freitag]

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

[Wormwood]

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.

[Mike Holmes]

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

[lumpley]

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

[iago]

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.

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.

[Hunter Logan]

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.

[jdagna]

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.

[Cemendur]

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.

[M. J. Young]

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.

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.

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?)

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."

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

[Cemendur]

"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.