Author Topic: Can Mechanics Be Irrelevant?  (Read 12979 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Cam_Banks

  • Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
    • Margaret Weis Productions
    • Email
Re: Can Mechanics Be Irrelevant?
« Reply #40 on: December 16, 2008, 12:59:01 PM »
In fact, many games (including World of Darkness) include GM fiat as an explicit mechanic in the core book, usually as the default mechanic for resolving issues that the rest of the system doesn't cover well.

Hmm. Here's an example: the oft-quoted mantra of Vincent Baker, "Yes, or roll dice." By this he means, if your players ask "Can I jump the chasm?" and you, as GM, don't think it's all that important or interesting to the story to have the player roll and totally fail, then you should say "yes" and move on. If you think it IS an important or interesting element of the story, then you should say "roll the dice."

Luke Crane mentions this in Burning Wheel, but many games have this as an implicit part of their system. In our Cortex games, we have a sidebar called "To Roll or Not to Roll" which says the same thing. Why are you having people roll dice to do something if that something is not terribly important? Just let them do it and move on.

Is this a mechanic? Or is it instead, "the mechanics are irrelevant, let's move on"? Seems to me that this is an example of GM/player interaction outside of the realm of the mechanics, because you are choosing NOT to bring the mechanics into the equation.

Cheers,
Cam
Managing Editor & Community Manager | Margaret Weis Productions

Wordman

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 70
    • Asteroid
Re: Can Mechanics Be Irrelevant?
« Reply #41 on: December 16, 2008, 01:22:29 PM »
« Last Edit: February 27, 2009, 03:00:57 AM by Wordman »
Ctrl ]

Brainpiercing

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1475
  • Thread Killer
    • Email
Re: Can Mechanics Be Irrelevant?
« Reply #42 on: December 16, 2008, 03:01:51 PM »
We're back in the realm of relevant or trivial, it seems.

Now let's get a definition for relevant mechanics, ok?

My suggestion: Everything (implying every action)  I can't free-form is a relevant mechanic, because it requires interaction.

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: Can Mechanics Be Irrelevant?
« Reply #43 on: December 16, 2008, 03:14:01 PM »
Given that Vincent baker says that everything that happens at the table is system, I doubt his 'say yes' statement means as you say cam.

As for proving a tautology, the point is to show what system is and how it is important.

Why would that be upsetting?  How is the answer anything other than 'gee I never thought of it like that.'

I get that people are all riled up.  And I apologize, again the problem is communication, which I admit is a big issue.   

As for trivial mechanics, I think you are wandering off topic.
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

Cam_Banks

  • Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
    • Margaret Weis Productions
    • Email
Re: Can Mechanics Be Irrelevant?
« Reply #44 on: December 16, 2008, 03:47:51 PM »
Given that Vincent baker says that everything that happens at the table is system, I doubt his 'say yes' statement means as you say cam.

Well, yeah, but I don't exactly subscribe to the guy's newsletter and wear his picture on a T-shirt, either. I think the suggestion of not bringing the mechanics into the story unless you need them is a good one, whether that leads to "all of the story is bound up in the system" or "the system is what happens when you reach an impasse/decision point" or whatever. And I think this is part of a larger and more revealing discussion that we, hopefully, are beginning to see, rather than just running into the roadblock of definitions so broad that the whole discussion is moot.

Cheers,
Cam
Managing Editor & Community Manager | Margaret Weis Productions

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: Can Mechanics Be Irrelevant?
« Reply #45 on: December 16, 2008, 05:51:15 PM »
I was actually politely pointing out you were misinterpreting what that statement means. 

Also the discussion is not moot.  The only way it would be moot is if everyone said 'we already know that.' And even then it would establish what people know.
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

Cam_Banks

  • Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
    • Margaret Weis Productions
    • Email
Re: Can Mechanics Be Irrelevant?
« Reply #46 on: December 16, 2008, 06:50:37 PM »
I was actually politely pointing out you were misinterpreting what that statement means.

I don't think I'm misinterpreting it. The statement means "you shouldn't bother rolling dice if it's not important or interesting." I think we can agree that this is generally a good idea. I just don't think saying yes is a mechanic. The mechanics aren't involved and thus irrelevant.

Quote
Also the discussion is not moot.  The only way it would be moot is if everyone said 'we already know that.' And even then it would establish what people know.

Poor choice of words on my part, then.

Cheers,
Cam
Managing Editor & Community Manager | Margaret Weis Productions

Fox Lee

  • Domesticated Capuchin Monkey
  • **
  • Posts: 120
  • Me Grimfox KING!
    • Fox Lee Studios
    • Email
Re: Can Mechanics Be Irrelevant?
« Reply #47 on: December 16, 2008, 07:27:47 PM »
In fact, many games (including World of Darkness) include GM fiat as an explicit mechanic in the core book, usually as the default mechanic for resolving issues that the rest of the system doesn't cover well.
Included or not, I wouldn't call it a mechanic. It's simply an alternative for what the mechanics don't handle, hence "resolving issues the rest of the system doesn't cover well". A game system which didn't endorse the idea of "just make some shit up when the mechanics don't work" would be dangerous to embark upon, because (unless the mechanics were perfect) that system would have point where the rules said you couldn't keep playing. However...

Is this a mechanic? Or is it instead, "the mechanics are irrelevant, let's move on"? Seems to me that this is an example of GM/player interaction outside of the realm of the mechanics, because you are choosing NOT to bring the mechanics into the equation.
This. I maintain that choosing to forgo mechanics is not a mechanic in and of itself.

Wordman

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 70
    • Asteroid
Re: Can Mechanics Be Irrelevant?
« Reply #48 on: December 16, 2008, 07:50:56 PM »
« Last Edit: February 27, 2009, 03:01:07 AM by Wordman »
Ctrl ]

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: Can Mechanics Be Irrelevant?
« Reply #49 on: December 16, 2008, 10:55:26 PM »
Actually the revelation that GM fiat is a mechanic is extremely important. 

Because if we understand it is just like any other mechanic we can treat it like any other mechanic.

Burning wheel does this with rules like "Circles" and the "Die of Fate."  Circles is a mechanic that allows players to introduce NPCs that are relevant to the game in a way they like.  And the DoF is a way that players can undo GM fiat. 

It means that another mechanic can be substituted for fiat.   

 
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

Cam_Banks

  • Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
    • Margaret Weis Productions
    • Email
Re: Can Mechanics Be Irrelevant?
« Reply #50 on: December 17, 2008, 12:54:33 AM »
Actually the revelation that GM fiat is a mechanic is extremely important. 

Because if we understand it is just like any other mechanic we can treat it like any other mechanic.

Or you can assert that you'd like to have a mechanic used rather than not, which would be the same thing.

Quote
And the DoF is a way that players can undo GM fiat. 

It means that another mechanic can be substituted for fiat.

In Call of Cthulhu, RuneQuest, and Stormbringer, this is called a Luck Roll. It also appears in Toon.

In BW, most of the time it's something the GM tosses in to avoid having a raging argument at the table over unimportant stuff. I'm amused by how it's also used as a random chance to suffer consequences of throwing around flashy magic, too.

So, again, not so much a way to undo GM fiat as a tool to keep table conflict from being an issue or because hey, there's a 1 in 6 chance of totally weird stuff happening and the GM gets to hide behind the dice.

Cheers,
Cam
Managing Editor & Community Manager | Margaret Weis Productions

Talen Lee

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 447
  • Forum Ninja
Re: Can Mechanics Be Irrelevant?
« Reply #51 on: December 17, 2008, 12:55:18 AM »
Where's Zeke when you need another alert?

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: Can Mechanics Be Irrelevant?
« Reply #52 on: December 17, 2008, 01:03:10 AM »
Actually the revelation that GM fiat is a mechanic is extremely important. 

Because if we understand it is just like any other mechanic we can treat it like any other mechanic.

Or you can assert that you'd like to have a mechanic used rather than not, which would be the same thing.

Only if you consider "0" to equal the "empty set" or "null"
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

Shoggoth

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 246
    • Email
Re: Can Mechanics Be Irrelevant?
« Reply #53 on: December 17, 2008, 01:10:26 AM »
First off, I want to assert that Vincent Baker's oft-quoted (including by me) "Say yes or roll" is NOT GM fiat.  

Fiat is the GM stating that a conflict ends with a certain resolution.  "Say yes or roll" is in fact arguing AGAINST fiat, by stating that rather than making a trivial unimportant question into a conflict, the entire issue should be sidestepped.  No conflict, no resolution, no fiat.

That aside, I'd like to step away from the annoying tautologies and possibly ask a refine the question that I believe has arisen from this discussion -

    From the perspective OF THE PARTICIPANTS, can mechanics be irrelevant?  Can the be selectively irrelevant?

I believe they can be.  Of course, I also don't think that every single thing that happens at the table arises out of mechanics.  But in Halloween's excellent example of what I think we can all agree is an abnormal play group, the actual mechanics used to resolve in game actions were all handled behind the screen.  The system could have been GURPS, or D&D whatever, or BRP, or FATE, or any number of systems, and from the players point of view it would be the same experience.  I call that irrelevant.

We can argue about whether the verbal components of the social contract at the table count as mechanics, or implicit mechanics, or table rules, or whatever, but the die mechanics for that game were irrelevant to all but one of the participants.  
Still came that eldritch, mocking cry - "Tekeli-li! Tekeli-li!" and at last we remembered that the demoniac Shoggoths...had no voice save the imitated accents of their bygone masters.

Cam_Banks

  • Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
    • Margaret Weis Productions
    • Email
Re: Can Mechanics Be Irrelevant?
« Reply #54 on: December 17, 2008, 01:18:45 AM »

    From the perspective OF THE PARTICIPANTS, can mechanics be irrelevant?  Can the be selectively irrelevant?

I believe they can be.

I agree. I have from time to time had at my table players who say, "Just tell me which dice to roll." They don't care about the mechanics, because they have expressed to me what their intent is, and expect me to tell them what happens as a result. I could offer them any number of mechanics, skill rolls, "roll a die and if you get a 1 you succeed," "spend a Plot Point and it works," etc. It's irrelevant to them, and in fact something of an obstacle to their enjoyment of the session.

And of course at the same table you get the guy who looks at his sheet, sees the highest number or best probability, and engineers events so that THAT is the thing he gets to roll, spend, or use in order to get past a challenge.

Both valid play styles. In one case, mechanics don't matter to the player (even if they do matter to the GM). In the other, mechanics are ALL that matter. They'll use the mechanics and come up with the "role playing" bits afterward.

Cheers,
Cam
Managing Editor & Community Manager | Margaret Weis Productions

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: Can Mechanics Be Irrelevant?
« Reply #55 on: December 17, 2008, 01:22:05 AM »

    From the perspective OF THE PARTICIPANTS, can mechanics be irrelevant?  Can the be selectively irrelevant?


Still no.

They might not care.  But mechanics affect them anyhow.  They win or lose by the mechanics.  I might not care what happens, but it does.

Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

Cam_Banks

  • Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
    • Margaret Weis Productions
    • Email
Re: Can Mechanics Be Irrelevant?
« Reply #56 on: December 17, 2008, 01:31:09 AM »
Still no.

They might not care.  But mechanics affect them anyhow.  They win or lose by the mechanics.  I might not care what happens, but it does.

Yes, but the specifics are unimportant. They're sure that, somehow, there will be a resolution. It could be a die roll or the GM could just make the call, but how they achieve that doesn't matter. In that sense, the mechanics are irrelevant. The GAME is relevant, and the OUTCOME is, but the mechanics? Not so much.

Cheers,
Cam
Managing Editor & Community Manager | Margaret Weis Productions

TheChrisWaits

  • Honorary Moderator
  • Curious George
  • *
  • Posts: 320
    • Email
Re: Can Mechanics Be Irrelevant?
« Reply #57 on: December 17, 2008, 01:35:49 AM »
The mechanics are the way that outcome is reached, though. If with one mechanic your intent gives you the desired outcome and with another it doesn't, doesn't that make the mechanic relevant?

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: Can Mechanics Be Irrelevant?
« Reply #58 on: December 17, 2008, 01:39:29 AM »
Still no.

They might not care.  But mechanics affect them anyhow.  They win or lose by the mechanics.  I might not care what happens, but it does.

Yes, but the specifics are unimportant. They're sure that, somehow, there will be a resolution. It could be a die roll or the GM could just make the call, but how they achieve that doesn't matter. In that sense, the mechanics are irrelevant. The GAME is relevant, and the OUTCOME is, but the mechanics? Not so much.

If you don't care what happens, you don't care what happens.  It still happens.

You do know that if the tree falls in the woods, it does make a noise?
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

Cam_Banks

  • Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
    • Margaret Weis Productions
    • Email
Re: Can Mechanics Be Irrelevant?
« Reply #59 on: December 17, 2008, 01:41:01 AM »
The mechanics are the way that outcome is reached, though. If with one mechanic your intent gives you the desired outcome and with another it doesn't, doesn't that make the mechanic relevant?

It depends on whether you have a stated preference in the outcome being one way or the other. Many times, I've had players who are excited to see what happens, because even "failure" can be interesting. I'm one of those "failure can be fun" GMs, for instance, as I don't particularly enjoy killing player characters off. In that sense, the players who don't care so much about what the specific mechanics used are will get their enjoyment out of the unknown, in this case, which of two potential outcomes will occur.

Cheers,
Cam
Managing Editor & Community Manager | Margaret Weis Productions