I was in a debate in RPG.net and it came to types of games and mechanics. I think the subject is interesting and I'm bringing it here.

My point is: I have found mainly four kind of mechanics in games. Copy-paste my post there (with some more comments).

- Task oriented. Focuses in accomplishing a task.
'my character tryes to do THAT'
This is the traditional one, fast and easy. Though, from my point of view, uses to lead the game to 'resolve the problem-kill the bad guy' story.

- Result oriented. Focuses in getting a specific result
'my character tryes to do something (that I can specify more or less) in order to get THAT result'
Similar to the previous one. In case of success works the same way, but it's much more interesting in case you fails: it's not a 'you fail' result but a 'you don't get your goal' which opens the door to new subplots and conflicts in the game. Goals that are not achieved are more opened from the point of view of a plot development than goals achived. Like the beginning from Anna Karenina says 'Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.'

- Conflict oriented. Focuses in a evolution and result from a conflict between two characters (usually)
'MY character wants this, the OTHER one wants that'. A minigame is developed where different results can come off, if not a negotiated solution.
Basically idea here is that a conflict is not a zero sum game, and 'I win, you lose' situation, but both can lose during the conflict and sometimes negotiation is the smartest option. Negotiation is a part of the plot by itself and make the outcome much more unpredictable that the two options 'A wins, B loses or A loses, B wins'

- Plot oriented. Focuses in plot twists.
'THAT happens, affecting my character in this way'.
From my point of view, a plot oriented mechanics is not far from a freeform magic mechanics. So it becomes plot-oriented when it's linked to the plot or to the character's psychology-goals-fears-motivations in some way (aspects in FATE would be an example).

Most of games are (mainly) Task-oriented, though now they are starting to be Result-oriented or Conflict-oriented. I have the feeling of Plot-oriented is a way that has been underdevelopped until now.

Thoughts about?

I hate to play the philosopher, but I see this as mental masturbation.  Try asking authors of RPGs what their game is oriented towards.  I conjecture that you're likely to get ambiguous answers.  In my opinion, you didn't find four kinds of mechanics that were innate foundations of RPG design, but conceived a quadrichotomy that does not accurately reflect reality.

Ar, thats like saying that the study of grammar or taxonomy is mental masturbation, the naming and classifying things is useful because it helps with better under standing of the past and more purposeful development of the future.

Moganhio, another way to look at resolution mechanics is on the scale at which things are resolved. Task resolution and conflict/result resolution (using your classifications) tend to blur when you resolve things in long scale tasks. A whole combat could be a task, but it has a pretty specific result, tasks only get divorced from results when you parse them finely enough, IME, but for the purposes of clarification can you site specific examples of each form of resolution and compare and contrast your terminology with that found in the provisional glossary?

Grammar is an immutable, concrete structure.  Taxonomy is a science.  RPG design is neither concrete, nor can it be reduced to a science.

Design is philosophy, and there are many philosophies out there for achieving the same goal, in which none can honestly claim to be the correct manner in which to proceed.  In general philosophy, the goal is to live a genuine and fulfilled life.  In RPG philosophy, the goal, more or less, is to create a game that naturally leads to fun play experiences.

I don't consider it to be mental masturbation that the OP is engaging in philosophical discussion.  I'm making a critique on the direction the OP is going with his philosophy, which lends itself more to theory than practical application.  It is like Immanuel Kant musing on a priori knowledge and a posteriori knowledge.  Although I suppose such questions need to be asked, I have my doubts as to whether or not they'll ever be useful to anyone other than the scholar, or for someone like me who is trying to make a clear analogy on an internet forum.

Furthermore, the OP's insights appear to be more derived from his own personal experiences rather than the experiences of other designers.  Again, I suppose such questions need to be asked in order for him to construct a better-aimed concept. 

masqueradeball wrote:
Moganhio, another way to look at resolution mechanics is on the scale at which things are resolved. Task resolution and conflict/result resolution (using your classifications) tend to blur when you resolve things in long scale tasks. A whole combat could be a task, but it has a pretty specific result, tasks only get divorced from results when you parse them finely enough, IME, but for the purposes of clarification can you site specific examples of each form of resolution and compare and contrast your terminology with that found in the provisional glossary?

Ar wrote:
I hate to play the philosopher, but I see this as mental masturbation. [...] but conceived a quadrichotomy that does not accurately reflect reality. [...] Grammar is an immutable, concrete structure.  Taxonomy is a science.  RPG design is neither concrete, nor can it be reduced to a science. [...] It is like Immanuel Kant musing on a priori knowledge and a posteriori knowledge.

At the risk of sounding like a bossy prig: lets watch the vitriol.

Total Aside: Grammar is not an immutable set of rules, its a derived set of "suggestions" (there are lots of different people out there touting official grammars) based off of an ever evolving system of language as it is used by people. And lots of things are sciences that classify and subdivide concepts that are not fixed and immutable, and even in biology people are often forced to redefine categories that they thought they were correct.

To the Point: So, what is that you'd like to discuss? I think the idea of using different mechanics for different situations could be a rewarding aspect of a design if implemented well. Would you like us to offer other resolution systems we've encountered?

In my own games I often use what I call Scene Resolution. The players compete for control of the scene and the player who comes out on top decide how the scene ends. The scene is established and shape by the individual "beats" within the extended resolution mechanic. How does that fit into your scheme?

I was trying to get answers the way 'hey man, you missed that' or 'this system is too ambiguous'. This classification is not supposed to cover the whole thing, it's not about every kind of system can be assigned to one of the options, but summarizing how RPGs systems use to work.

For example, conflict resolution is not about resolving any kind conflict, but a specific mechanics with some common features: it uses some rounds, you have a temporal trait that I call exhaustion (but can be named otherwise) that is supposed to fall to zero or reach some level. Depending on the final values there is consequences for both parts, but before reaching this point they can negotiate an agreement to avoid bigger losses. In every round you can use different mechanics, opposed rolls or rock-scissor-paper or any else. This class it's a very pragmatical thing.

And not, your system don't fit in any of them, and I never saw it before in a game (though I think Polaris or Fiasco probably work that way). It is supposed to work with or without GM?

With, I mean, there unfinished games, but in theory its GM v/players for control of the scene.

Hello,

Moderator time.

1. This thread has a good topic, but it would help to know more about the system/mechanics ideas that are aimed at plot-constructive resolution. I can think of some pretty good references for games that have tried it already, but it's more useful with that knowledge.

2. Porting debates from other websites to the Forge causes trouble when it's explicit, and it's unnecessary to say you're doing it. For whatever reason, saying so creates a kind of inter-website tension and people feel on the spot, as if they're being dragged into someone else's argument. If you do post here based on some debate or discussion elsewhere, it's best to think of this particular piece as its own isolated thing, where we don't have to get positioned into whatever is happening somewhere else.

3. The level of personal attack, which has prompted personal defense, is totally out of line. Christopher (Ar Kayon), stop posting to this thread. You didn't help it and your continued presence is simply getting the guy upset. Similarly, Moganhio, it's true Christopher was provocative, but to post here, you're asked to keep your temper. If you think someone's out of line, don't hammer the keys to defend yourself, just report the post. Otherwise I have to moderate you too, like now.

So - the topic remains open. I have asked for a little more information about the proposed game idea. Christopher's going to leave it alone. Moganhio's going to decide whether he wants to be insulted or wants to discuss something serious. To be absolutely clear, this is a moderator post, and at the Forge, you do not post in defiance of me in that role. Let's merely carry on with the good stuff.

Best, Ron

Ron wrote: Similarly, Moganhio, it's true Christopher was provocative, but to post here, you're asked to keep your temper.

Ron wrote: For whatever reason, saying so creates a kind of inter-website tension and people feel on the spot, as if they're being dragged into someone else's argument.

Well, as I said, I didn't explain it in the right way, as long as it isn't a classification but a summarize. My point is not to get some answer 'you're right, man, just brilliant' but 'this is not clear'. 'that doesn't work' or, specially, 'you missed that'.

So, again.

- Task mechanics. The character tryes to do something and the player rolls for it. Systems are different, but at the end it means that you have a probability X of succeeding.

-- Opposed tasks. A player rolling against other one, usually the player with the bigger margin wins. At the end it means again: I have a probability X of success.

- Result mechanics. Similar to 'task mechanics', but the player defines a goal for the character. In case of succeeding, works similarly to 'task mechanics'. But it case of fail, the player is not supposed to miss the task but the goal. That gives the GM the chance to introduce new conflicts and plot situations: if you are trying to reach an island in a cessna (light aircraft) and you miss the task, you crash the aircraft, but if you miss the goal, perhaps you went wrong and reached a different island...

- Conflict mechanics. Copy-paste from myself before: 'Conflict resolution is not about resolving any kind conflict, but a specific mechanics with some common features: it uses some rounds, you have a temporal trait that I call exhaustion (but can be named otherwise) that is supposed to fall to zero or reach some level. Depending on the final values there is consequences for both parts, but before reaching this point they can negotiate an agreement to avoid bigger losses. In every round you can use different mechanics, opposed rolls, rock-scissor-paper, prisoner's dilemma or any else'.

- Plot mechanics. Player can make a proposal about the plot. It can be related to present ('that happens now') or to past ('that happened and its effects in the present are those'). It's a very powerful tool, so in gamist RPGs it has to be limited somehow (as long as in narrativist RPGs more freedom is given to players). The way of limiting it uses to be the use of points or some plot-skills-equivalent traits (for example, aspects in FATE). Or both.

By the way, in the game I'm preparing (generic) I want to give the players the option of not to play any character, but a 'idea' that works only with plot mechanics (a kind of experimental option). Imagine you're in a little town, with its relations, intrigues and secrets, where a player represents 'lust'. What means: he has to twist the plot the way he brings lust to the life of people there. Though I'm still thinking about it. Anyway, the whole game is gonna be quite experimental (something I miss in generic games).

- Scene resolution, proposed by masqueradeball before, I copy-paste: 'In my own games I often use what I call Scene Resolution. The players compete for control of the scene and the player who comes out on top decide how the scene ends. The scene is established and shape by the individual "beats" within the extended resolution mechanic'.

Until here, roll mechanics. I couldn't find any more.

- Plot points. Related to plot mechanics, it is used to limit player access to plot mechanics.

-- Plot points pool. It regulates the master's access to plot twist: there is a plot points pool that master can use everytime he wants to add a new conflict/subplot/obstacle. I really love this system. As a master, sometimes I tried to introduce new conflicts to players and got an answer like 'hey, we didn't make any mistake, why are you doing new problems to come up?' (something that happens when players are too focused in 'kill the big boss, get the XPs and get a super-cool-powerful character'). So that regulates it and means a support for the master. Lovely.

- Turning points. I have seen them in different games but never saw a thread about them like a new kind of points. So I made up a new name for them, just for having one. For me, turning points are a specific kind of points that can only be used when master proposes, and turns out in a plot twist. That works if the plot has a very specific goal for players (to figure out a mistery, to escape from a prison, to survive a serial killer, to survive environment, to find a treasure, and many else). Master decides when is a crucial moment (but can be bluffing) in order to reach this goal and ask players (o a player) if they want to spend a point. The question is: there is less points than crucial moments, so players has to decide when is the right moment to spend it. Investigation system in gumshoe could be classified here, for example.

And that's all. I didn't find more point mechanics.

So, suggestions?

Moganhio:

I don't have much to say except that I love your idea of Plot Mechanics, and I believe it's what I was after to make a "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels/Snatc" game, although I have no idea how to begin doing it.