Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on April 02, 2022, 12:48:20 PM
For me the criteria I think useful in judging a game mechanic are as follows (not necessarily in priority order):

1) Simple vs. Opaque. Is it easy to learn to use, and easy to understand and apply the results?

It can't be TOO simple, though, there has to be a balance.  You need some element of system mastery (or what I called obfuscation) to suspend disbelief.  The simplest system, a coin flip, is pretty much what the first version of the Mythic GM Engine did back in the day, and it was boring as hell.  To me at least.

I agree with the rest, just wanted to point that out.

You don't really need system mastery for a d100 roll-under mechanic. It's dead simple to explain and use. The only real problem is sometimes the designers will overestimate how effective a certain target is. It would probably be best to rate abilities on a letter grade scale, with an 'E' starting at 50% at the lowest, so everyone's abilities are for the most part in the 60%-90% range.

Quote from: migo on April 02, 2022, 01:17:53 PM
You don't really need system mastery for a d100 roll-under mechanic. It's dead simple to explain and use. The only real problem is sometimes the designers will overestimate how effective a certain target is. It would probably be best to rate abilities on a letter grade scale, with an 'E' starting at 50% at the lowest, so everyone's abilities are for the most part in the 60%-90% range.

You're reading me backwards.

If it's dead simple to explain and use, it's probably boring.

Some system mastery adds texture, like salt and pepper in your dish.

Too much is obviously a problem.  But you need some.

Quote from: mcbobbo on April 02, 2022, 02:39:55 PM

Quote from: migo on April 02, 2022, 01:17:53 PM
You don't really need system mastery for a d100 roll-under mechanic. It's dead simple to explain and use. The only real problem is sometimes the designers will overestimate how effective a certain target is. It would probably be best to rate abilities on a letter grade scale, with an 'E' starting at 50% at the lowest, so everyone's abilities are for the most part in the 60%-90% range.

You're reading me backwards.

If it's dead simple to explain and use, it's probably boring.

Some system mastery adds texture, like salt and pepper in your dish.

Too much is obviously a problem.  But you need some.

I would say texture in an RPG comes from the interesting situations the setting places the PCs in. Mechanics which "get out of the way" for resolving things help to preserve that texture instead of distracting from it by requiring too much focus to perform and interpret.

Ultimately it comes down to focus. If your interest is rolling dice, sure, make that the focus with interesting elements. If your focus is the roleplaying and player choices then mechanics that are quick and easy to execute keep the focus on the roleplay and making the choices, not on the wait to if the choice was a good/successful one or not.

Quote from: Chris24601 on April 02, 2022, 03:21:43 PM
I would say texture in an RPG comes from the interesting situations the setting places the PCs in. Mechanics which "get out of the way" for resolving things help to preserve that texture instead of distracting from it by requiring too much focus to perform and interpret.

Ultimately it comes down to focus. If your interest is rolling dice, sure, make that the focus with interesting elements. If your focus is the roleplaying and player choices then mechanics that are quick and easy to execute keep the focus on the roleplay and making the choices, not on the wait to if the choice was a good/successful one or not.

This is the walk and chew gum thing from earlier.  The mechanics and the conduct of the game are different things and can be employed to differing degrees of success.  You can have a game with excellent, textured mechanics AND focus on roleplay and choices.  They're not on a spectrum.

Quote from: Chris24601 on April 02, 2022, 03:21:43 PM

Quote from: mcbobbo on April 02, 2022, 02:39:55 PMIf it's dead simple to explain and use, it's probably boring. Some system mastery adds texture, like salt and pepper in your dish.

I would say texture in an RPG comes from the interesting situations the setting places the PCs in. Mechanics which "get out of the way" for resolving things help to preserve that texture instead of distracting from it by requiring too much focus to perform and interpret.

Ultimately it comes down to focus. If your interest is rolling dice, sure, make that the focus with interesting elements. If your focus is the roleplaying and player choices then mechanics that are quick and easy to execute keep the focus on the roleplay and making the choices, not on the wait to if the choice was a good/successful one or not.

And it can also be a design goal to try for the best of both worlds.  One of the great things that The Riddle of Steel does with their combat system (I swear, Driftwood doesn't pay me, I'm just a fanboy) is that the atmosphere of managing commitment between attack and defense, and the feel of losing your energy and fighting ability as fatigue takes its tool on your reserves, is physically represented by the mechanics of allocating the Combat Pool of dice between rolls, and watching it shrink if you fight for too long.

The idea of simplicity in rules but complexity in outcome is useful as well. My go-to example here is, no pun intended, Go: very simple rules, very complex gameplay once all the ramifications and extrapolations of all the possible moves are taken into account.

Quote from: mcbobbo on April 02, 2022, 02:39:55 PM

Quote from: migo on April 02, 2022, 01:17:53 PM
You don't really need system mastery for a d100 roll-under mechanic. It's dead simple to explain and use. The only real problem is sometimes the designers will overestimate how effective a certain target is. It would probably be best to rate abilities on a letter grade scale, with an 'E' starting at 50% at the lowest, so everyone's abilities are for the most part in the 60%-90% range.

You're reading me backwards.

If it's dead simple to explain and use, it's probably boring.

Some system mastery adds texture, like salt and pepper in your dish.

Too much is obviously a problem.  But you need some.

What most players want is complexity in character design, not game mechanics. Make it easy enough that you can explain the system to them in 15 minutes and give them a pre-gen, but if they want to spend hours poring over options and building their own custom character they can.

QuoteIt can't be TOO simple, though, there has to be a balance.  You need some element of system mastery (or what I called obfuscation) to suspend disbelief.  The simplest system, a coin flip, is pretty much what the first version of the Mythic GM Engine did back in the day, and it was boring as hell.  To me at least.

I mean what suspension of disbelief has to do with complication of game engine itself?

Quote4e was not a well received edition. It's why Pathfinder was so popular. If you're just making it for fun and just to play with your gaming group it doesn't matter if they like it, but if you're planning on publishing, elements from 4e are questionable.

Are they? I mean sure 4e had many critics, but they went to 5e. Meanwhile fans of 4e were left on thin ice... so...

QuoteThis is the walk and chew gum thing from earlier.  The mechanics and the conduct of the game are different things and can be employed to differing degrees of success.  You can have a game with excellent, textured mechanics AND focus on roleplay and choices.  They're not on a spectrum.

But generally mechanics is in service of narrative not otherwise. Therefore mastery of system should link to fictional situation. Otherwise - why not use this mechanic love for boardgame where relations between fiction and mechanics are opposite - fiction is just flavour for fun mechanics. I don't think you can really serve two masters as Bible says - those things are not in spectrum but they need to be intimately connected. Meanwhile you seems to desire some interesting engine as divorced from what RP is about, for sake of engine.

Quote from: Wrath of God on April 02, 2022, 06:43:02 PMI mean what suspension of disbelief has to do with complication of game engine itself?

I would suggest that "preservation of immersion" is a slightly more accurate phrase in this context than "suspension of disbelief", although they're both phrases describing the same phenomenon: the capacity to invest emotion and excitement into the fictional happenings of the characters as if they were real. A mechanic that you have to think too hard about figuring out disrupts this state of mind.

Different players will have different thresholds for what constitutes "having to think too hard", of course. We should never forget that one of the great initial appeals of this hobby was that most games were designed to reward high time investment in learning all the elements and nuances of the system, such that one needed to consult the rulebooks as seldom as possible.

QuoteMeanwhile you seems to desire some interesting engine as divorced from what RP is about, for sake of engine.

That seems like it might be an overly harsh interpretation. Nothing's wrong with rules that are interesting enough in themselves to command player investment in their mastery, as long as they aren't so difficult to learn or use that more people are knocked out of immersion while using them than not. I'll freely admit to being a system monkey myself sheerly out of pure enjoyment of testing and manipulation.

Stephen gets it, and I feel the same way.

There's one master to serve - fun.  The game needs to be an enjoyable way to spend time.  Whether it passes any other purity test is up to those playing it to judge.