What is a Mechanic?

[simon_hibbs]

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

[HMT]

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.

[simon_hibbs]

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.

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

[Marco]

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

[lumpley]

M.J., I agree with you:

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.

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

-Vincent

[Mike Holmes]

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.

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

[Wormwood]

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.

[Mike Holmes]

Excellent points Mendel.

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.

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

[HMT]

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

... 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 ...

[Cemendur]

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]

[Jack Spencer Jr]

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

[Walt Freitag]

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.

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.

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?

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

[simon_hibbs]

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.)

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

[Walt Freitag]

We'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

[Mike Holmes]

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.

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. :-)

Um, 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. ;-)

To 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).

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.

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

Mike