Do Mechanics Actually Matter for a Role-Playing Game?

[JellyPooga]

I suggested playing Mastermind - the code-breaking board game

Ooh...I like that! I hadn't thought of using it as a resolution mechanic in an RPG, but I can definitely see it for investigations, social deductions and other long-form scenarios. Time limit and difficulty can be set by number of "guesses" allowed, number of pegs in the row and number of colours, so there's a ton of variables to play with. Colours could even be tied to characteristics or themes. I like it.

[Kardwill]

Ooh...I like that! I hadn't thought of using it as a resolution mechanic in an RPG, but I can definitely see it for investigations, social deductions and other long-form scenarios. Time limit and difficulty can be set by number of "guesses" allowed, number of pegs in the row and number of colours, so there's a ton of variables to play with. Colours could even be tied to characteristics or themes. I like it.

Mastermind is used (with a variety of other puzzles) in the Mansions of Madness boardgame to simulate the "unravel an enigma" parts, with the adjustments you suggested (each action spent gives you 1 attempt per point in your puzzle-solving skill, and harder challenge = more colors/funky eldritch symbols and more "pegs").
Find the combination of the safe? Solve a mastermind.
Examine the photograph in search of a clue? Solve a jigsaw puzzle.
etc...

It... kinda works? But mostly because that game has a hard turn limit, and losing actions is bad, so the need to quickly solve the problem gives it tension.

[Zalam]

I know on this board we tend to lean toward wonkishness on game design and mechanics, but on the larger scale do they actually matter?

Now, before you go grab your pitch fork and torches, hear me out a bit.

All of the RPGs we play are using a process to generate an Outcome that we translate into a Result. Essentially there are the Inputs, the Process, and the Output the process generates. The Output is then applied to get the Results for the players.

As long as the Process gets the appropriate Result, does the actual mechanics of the process matter? Does it matter is you roll dice, flip cards, push Jenga blocks, flip a coin, consult a chart, use an equation, etc?

The key component for game purposes and for the player is the Result. Therefore, does the actual mechanic you use to generate that result matter? Does the mechanics chosen help a game meet its Design Goals? What other purposes can/do mechanics serve than getting a result for the game?

In short, do mechanics actually matter?

I look forward to a lot of interesting replies.

I'm going to channel Greyview and say that no, none of this matters. When the final noogie falls, all other actions save getting treats matter not.

[Unoriginal]

I'm reminded of how the Like a Dragon video game franchise pivoted from 3d-beat-them-up-style fights into sorta-turn-based-CRPG-style fights.

YMMV, but personally I think the later style doesn't fit the "pulpy, hammy crime drama with over-the-top action scenes" genre of the franchise.

Would have been different if the games with the new mechanics had a different genre, but it isn't the case. It's the same kind of stories people are accustomed to... and then the combat starts and you're in a whole different system.

I know the turn-based-CRPG is justified as "the protagonist is obsessed with Dragon Quest, so this is how he perceives the fights", and it is funny when the protagonist of the pre-system change shows up and his special power is "ignore the turn-based CRPG stuff, you fight like in your own games", but still... to give a comparison, it'd be like a GM ran a campaign using the Powered By The Apocalypse system, in the same setting as a previous PbtA campaign ... except this time fights are run using GURPS.

[Vogie]

Mastermind is used (with a variety of other puzzles) in the Mansions of Madness boardgame to simulate the "unravel an enigma" parts, with the adjustments you suggested (each action spent gives you 1 attempt per point in your puzzle-solving skill, and harder challenge = more colors/funky eldritch symbols and more "pegs").
Find the combination of the safe? Solve a mastermind.
Examine the photograph in search of a clue? Solve a jigsaw puzzle.
etc...

It... kinda works? But mostly because that game has a hard turn limit, and losing actions is bad, so the need to quickly solve the problem gives it tension.

You know, we play Mansions of Madness all the time but I never made that connection. Interesting.

Also shout out to MoM on having what I think is one of the most interesting executions of a vitality/wound system I've ever seen. For those that haven't had the pleasure, damage is represented by cards that are dealt out that can be either face up or face down, with face down ones being able to be healed, and some effects turning face-down damage face-up. Some card faces have card values like "Shock - turn this face down" while others might be "Broken Leg, reduce your speed by 2, keep this face up". Then they have a sanity meter that acts in the same way. Utterly brilliant.

[Quertus]

I'm going to channel Greyview and say that no, none of this matters. When the final noogie falls, all other actions save getting treats matter not.

So, mechanics that involve getting treats are clearly different from other mechanics then, no? Enemy minis are treats; eat them when you defeat them. Resolve random outcomes by eating a treat blind, and guessing what it is (EDIT: “guess that snack”?). Etc.

[Magikeeper]

Long ago, I played in a very large (player count wise) play-by-post setting that had no resolution mechanic. It did have mechanics for gaining abilities, spells, etc, but although what powers/items a player possessed were carefully described, the end result of swinging your flaming sword against the bandit was free-form.

That system worked generally worked fine. But there are some things free-form resolution didn't do very well, such as:

-- Abilities that give small improvements to speed, strength, etc. It's very hard for humans to RP small modifiers without a mathematical resolution mechanic.
-- Having a faster reaction speed.
-- SPIW (So Powerful It's Worthless) abilities. SPIW abilities, like direct crippling-pain-creating mental attacks, suffered from being so cheap that everyone would always find the strength of will to push past them or whatever. Maybe if a quest-runner was running random mooks it'd finally do something. Some, self included, would still let it disrupt/hinder them for a post but even then likely not much longer than that. Such a mental attack actually be *stronger* if it created a lesser, more specific, penalty, as people would be far more likely to let such a power continually hinder them.

----

Anyway, you don't *need* resolution mechanics to have a fun game. Thus, the system you choose should be fun to use in its own right, help promote the theme/tone/feel/etc you're aiming for, and/or make stuff like small, incremental benefits viable.

People play single player video games after all, some of which offer very little besides just getting to play the game (no story, etc.). People can enjoy the mechanics just as much as they enjoy the RP aspects.

[Pex]

Yes because without them you eventually get "I shot you! No you didn't!" children playground arguments. We're also not professional comedians doing improv. Obviously there are lots of different mechanics to handle stuff. What people like and don't like is their personal preference. Complexity, simplistic, realistic, fantastical. All in different amounts and implementations. Play what you like.

[Vahnavoi]

Yes because without them you eventually get "I shot you! No you didn't!". children playground arguments.

Don't kid yourself. Majority of recurring arguments about mechanics are just variations of the same. Rules and mechanics don't save you from this, people who are capable of agreeing on rules and mechanics do.

Children's games have rules and mechanics, besides. For play-shooting, the typical rules are 1) I have to see the target, 2) I have to aim the pretend-gun at the target, 3) I have to make appropriate gun-like noise and, occasionally, 4) call out the name of the target. The mechanic by which this works is that the target 1) observes that the rules are followed, 2) agrees the rules are followed and 3) chooses to co-operate. Without these things, we wouldn't even be able to distinquish play-shooting from any other game.

[crimson_witch]

I think mechanics is a broader term than resolution system.

The list of skills / stats / whatever already gives style and atmosphere to a game, by emphasizing what's important (narrow, specific skills) and what's not really (vague, broad skills). Also the resolution system itself varies wildly in the ratio between randomness / player control, and that feels important for me, so it is, for me.

Obviously, everyone has their own preferences, but game mechanics have a strong steering function in a game. Not 100% decisive, but pushing the game style / mood in a direction.

Funny thing is, some games' mechanics don't correspond to the genre stated by the creators, which results in a rules system pushing the game in a different direction the creator wanted it to.

[gatorized]

As long as the Process gets the appropriate Result, does the actual mechanics of the process matter? Does it matter is you roll dice, flip cards, push Jenga blocks, flip a coin, consult a chart, use an equation, etc?

In short, do mechanics actually matter?

I look forward to a lot of interesting replies.

Yes. In bad games, resolving one round of combat takes an hour. In good games, a whole fight takes a couple minutes, and most of that time is spent describing the cool **** that's happening instead of adding up thirty four separate modifiers. And this is entirely up to the mechanics.

[kyoryu]

Yes. In bad games, resolving one round of combat takes an hour. In good games, a whole fight takes a couple minutes, and most of that time is spent describing the cool **** that's happening instead of adding up thirty four separate modifiers. And this is entirely up to the mechanics.

While I personally agree with you, I think it's also important to remember that different people view fun in different ways. For some people, that level of detail and adding up 34 different modifiers is the fun, and likely a game that you or I enjoy would feel dull and flat to them.

In either case, though, mechanics matter. You just need a game that supports your idea of fun, whatever that might be.

[Jason]

Yes, game mechanics matter. Because RPGs are games.

They don't matter as much as some other things do in creating a good experience, like who you play with and what the story and setting is, but bad game mechanics can certainly make it much more difficult to have a good gaming experience, while good gaming mechanics will make it at least somewhat easier.

One important consideration is how much time game mechanics take to resolve. Any time spent rolling dice (or shuffling cards or whatever) is time the narrative of the game doesn't progress. A reasonable amount of time can be good for building tension on important rolls, but if the system needs a lot of rolls to resolve each action and each roll takes a lot of time then momentum is lost, and with it excitement and player engagement, especially in combat.

FFG Star Wars has this problem in spades. Combat with high-level characters in that game consists of deciding as a group which player character acts on the current initiative point, with the chosen player deciding which target to attack, what combat talents of his character to use, the GM deciding what positive and negative modifier dice to use, the player deciding whether or not to use Destiny Points, the group deciding what talents of other players may influence the roll and whether to use them, counting up the different dice types needed (and probably having to borrow some from other players - the game uses a lot of dice at high-level play), rolling all the dice, picking out which results cancel out which other results to get your final result (and remembering what the non-intuitive symbols on the dice mean and which cancel out which), deciding if you have any talents that can change this final result and whether to use them (including talents that allow re-rolls and talents of other player characters), and then deciding how to spend any Advantage from the final die result to modify the result of the action, and what the results of any Triumph are, and the GM then decides how to spend any Threat or the result of any Despairs, and finally continues the narration of the action.

In other words, each roll for each player takes a lot of time.

Another consideration, especially for a game using an already established setting, is whether the game mechanics can effectively emulate the setting - whether they produce results that match what the characters in the original setting can do.

FFG Star Wars again has this problem (are you sensing what one of my least favorite RPGs is?). Jedi in that setting simply cannot duplicate some of the things they do in the movies. Full Jedi in the prequel movies are almost immune to blaster fire, effortlessly reflecting bolt after bolt unless they are seriously overwhelmed by waves and waves of attackers.

In the RPG the Reflect talent allows you to negate a few points of an incoming blaster bolt, but you would need to master multiple lightsaber talent trees (i.e. be exceptionally experienced) to get enough Reflect levels to completely negate even a low-end blaster pistol, and you still suffer Strain every time you use it (of which you have maybe a half-dozen points as a starting character and maybe in the low teens as a high-level character). Stopping a single blaster bolt from a battle droid rifle is out of the question unless you're playing a really high level Jedi (more experienced than Yoda or Mace Windu as statted in the books).

All that being said, I played a Jedi in an FFG Star Wars game for two years and still had a fun time. It's just that the game mechanics were an obstacle rather than a helper, from day one through the end of the campaign.