Having a read a couple of forge (and forge-friendly) games, it struck me that they all seemed to employ a single resolution mechanic, and that this mechanic mostly seemed to apply to all actions a player could want to undertake but which might fail.

By way of example, dogs in the vineyard (DITV) employs a single stat/skill/equipment based roll - with a moderately clever poker style system for determining who actually wins - for any conflict (that is: any non-automatic action) including social or informational conflicts.  The GM is advised to respond to any player plan by either "say[ing] yes or roll[ing] dice".  There are no situational modifiers and the specifics of a player's proposed course of action have no effect on the way the conflict plays out.

I have, I think, two questions: -

First, how did this apparent commonality between forge games arise?  Is it a result of some aspect of their game theory (which would ideally be explained to me without making further reference to terms defined by that theory).  Does "forgey" mean "single, universal mechanic"?

Second, is it a good idea?  I have two knee-jerk objections:

Number one, I'm uncomfortable with treating everything in the game as a conflict to be resolved mechanically.  Like a lot of people, I see at least some social interactions as being best resolved through GM-moderated role-playing rather than a social skill roll.  That goes double for solving the  mystery or finding the clue.

Number two, because single mechanic systems treat all player actions as mechanically equivalent (in the sense that "I try to climb the wall while deflecting the arrows with my sword" and "I leap over the wall while laying down supressive fire with my uzi" will have identical outcomes every time) it functionally restricts player choice to three or four options ("I use strength/agility/chutzpah/mysticism to solve the conflict") and relegates everything else player want their character to do to colour commentary.  Sure, every game functions at some level of abstraction (most games will treat "I parry his blows and then aim a lightning thrust at his groin" as equivalent to "I feign left and try to slash his head from his body") I think the tradeoff between playability and flexibility here has been pushed too far in one direction.

Am I wrong?

I have absolutely no idea on your first question.  

Quote from: lacemakerSecond, is it a good idea?  I have two knee-jerk objections:

Number one, I'm uncomfortable with treating everything in the game as a conflict to be resolved mechanically.  Like a lot of people, I see at least some social interactions as being best resolved through GM-moderated role-playing rather than a social skill roll.  That goes double for solving the  mystery or finding the clue.

My thought here is that simply having a mechanical answer doesn't mean that you absolutely must use it.  If the players and the GM are more interested in role-playing out social interactions then go ahead and do so.  However, I think that it is nice when a game does have an option for people who don't necessarily have fun playing those things out.  

As an example, I cannot stand riddles or puzzles.  If I'm playing a 16th level Wizard in D&D with a 26 Intelligence, I'm much happier when I say "*roll* Jasper tears through the puzzle like a tissue at a snot party" than I am when I have to spend 20 minutes of real time dicking around with a chessboard or some dorky cipher that the DM came up with late on Friday night.  

Likewise, there is a player in my group who doesn't like or understand mysteries.  He's never read any Sherlock Holmes or any other detective fiction, doesn't watch any of the cop drama TV shows and so forth.  Now, the rest of the group really does like mystery stories and so when I run something mystery oriented I always make sure there are plenty of options for him to just roll out checks where the other players might instead role-play questioning a witness.  

QuoteNumber two, because single mechanic systems treat all player actions as mechanically equivalent (in the sense that "I try to climb the wall while deflecting the arrows with my sword" and "I leap over the wall while laying down supressive fire with my uzi" will have identical outcomes every time) it functionally restricts player choice to three or four options ("I use strength/agility/chutzpah/mysticism to solve the conflict") and relegates everything else player want their character to do to colour commentary.  Sure, every game functions at some level of abstraction (most games will treat "I parry his blows and then aim a lightning thrust at his groin" as equivalent to "I feign left and try to slash his head from his body") I think the tradeoff between playability and flexibility here has been pushed too far in one direction.

I tend to think the point of the mechanics like that is to push the tradeoff as far toward the extreme end as possible.  Some people, in some games, don't like or want too many options.  I personally agree with you, especially if the system doesn't use situational modifiers.

Single mechanic resolution has been around far longer than the Forge. The Forge does focus on conflict resolution rather than task resolution, so they are behind the recent upsurge in conflict resolution games, but there are plenty of non-Forge single resolution mechanic systems.

-mice

I think a lot depends on the ability of the players to truly roleplay a situation and the skills the GM may (or may not) possess for interpreting the roleplay.  

I've been in situations where the GM was completely unable to resolve anything without a mechanical resolution.  He just wasn't capable.  His experience was primarily with wargaming.  He needed a rule to determine if the Face was able to successfully Fastalk the Johnson.

I've been in situations where the character had near godlike ability, through character design, background and actual skill values, but the player was so shy and unassuming that she would just say, "I try to talk him out of it" and roll the dice.

I've always considered the mechanics to be a "crutch" to help the story along.  When you don't want an arbitrary decision, you turn to the mechanic.  When you don't have the skill necessary to accomplish the roleplay, you turn to the mechanic.  When the GM is lacking in creativity for the night, he turns to the mechanic.

The mechanic should only be brought into the roleplay situation as much (or as little) as the players and GM need it.  For some, that may be a lot and that's what they like and that's great!    For some, that may be a little and that's what they like and that's great!    As long as everyone has a good time, consumes many snacks and drinks and can later say, "Hey, remember that time when we..." with a big grin on their faces.