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."

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

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.

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

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").

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

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.

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

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

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: 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.

Jack then wrote: 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."

"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.

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

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.

HMT wrote: 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

simon_hibbs wrote: ... 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 ...

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.)

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

Mike Holmes wrote:

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?

Walt Freitag wrote: 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.)

Simon Hibbs wrote: We're all entitled to our preferences, but the word 'mechanic' is a perfectly good adjective, as well as being a noun.

Walt Freitag wrote: 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.

Um, based on what credentials am I the expert here??? I deny any accusations of expertise. :)

To me, the key characteristic of a game mechanism is the specificity of the outcome.

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.

Actually, in everyday usage, mechanics can be used singular or plural. I agree that a mechanic is a worker skilled in making or repairing machines and tools.

In psychology, mechanism means the automatic and consistent response of an organism to various stimuli. This might have an application here too.

Walt, I will respect your quarky use of mechanism as singular for mechanics. If we can come to a consensus on using the quantum mechanics model, I would be thrilled.

Also, method is excellent. Do you mean to use it for means which are not mechanics. Or do you mean to use it for the overall category of mechanics and non-mechanics?

Irregardless of what we call them, here are the things that I believe we are trying to name.

Resolution
A) Resolution Mechanics
A1) Fortune Resolution Mechanics
A2) Karma Resolution Mechanics
B) Drama Resolution Methods (Role-playing Resolution Methods)

For me mechanics are the fortune and karma of a RPG. They are a consistent set of responses. I also think this is common gamerspeak. I think Drama Resolution Methods deserve their own language.

[System[Rules[Resolution]]]

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: ...what constitues a mechanic or not. This seems like an worthwhile topic to discuss.

So mechanic = method in at least definition. Works for me and it avoids the connotations of machinery.