Do your Mechanics Matter?

[Easy E]

Mechanics are the tools you use to play-out the game on the tabletop.  Their purpose is to create and end result, and output that the player uses to continue the game or get a result.  They are simply a process.  It is the result itself that is useful to the game.  Therefore, does it matter to your game what mechanisms you use to get to the end result? 

The mechanics of a game are simply the series of steps or actions that lead to the results you need to move the game forward towards its conclusion.  A process has a series of suppliers, inputs, outputs and users that make use of the process.  Mechanics can be the steps and equipment used to process the inputs for the suppliers and create outputs for the user.  In the case of Wargamers the suppliers and the Users maybe the same player, or a different player. 

In short, mechanics are simply a tool to get you from Point A to Resolution B.  Does it matter if you use one polyhedron dice over another?  Does it make a difference if you use cards rather than dice?  What about charts? 

Game designers spend a lot of time thinking about the mechanics.  Does all this thought and effort actually help make a better game?

I have some thoughts here on the blog: 
https://bloodandspectacles.blogspot.com/2024/03/wargame-design-do-your-mechanics-matter.html

My answer is Yes and No.  The actual resolution method doesn't matter that much for the purposes of the process, but the process itself can help reinforce the goals of the game itself.  Plus, some processes are just "better" or more efficient/elegant than others.   

I am pretty sure you guys have a lot of thoughts about this topic too.  I am eager to hear what you all think. 

[ithoriel]

As always, you raise some interesting points.

I'd echo your "My answer is Yes and No.  The actual resolution method doesn't matter that much for the purposes of the process, but the process itself can help reinforce the goals of the game itself.  Plus, some processes are just "better" or more efficient/elegant than others."

Some processes may give a perfectly satisfactory game but sometimes the right process can elevate a game from "perfectly satisfactory" to "something special."

Examples of mechanisms that have elevated games for me recently include Enderain's npc activation and movement process, Tribal's card play combat, and my interest in Gangs of Rome went up recently when I saw the "declare your intended actions then dice to see how many you actually make" mechanism in action in a YouTube video.

Some mechanisms just suit the ethos of the game better.

[Basementboy]

Some mechanisms just suit the ethos of the game better.

Have to agree. Although I don’t mind too much, mechanics are a very useful way of adding character to the game that it could otherwise lack.

[Belligerentparrot]

Hard to argue with your "Yes and no" answer. On "ethos", I've always liked the time limit the Marine player has in Space Hulk, that the alien player lacks. Such a simple and effective way of capturing how quickly the aliens think and react.

I wonder if some process/mechanics are just inappropriate to a table-top game. I'm thinking specifically of how cleverly the first few iterations (I haven't kept up) of MtG were designed so that the mechanics were kind of made to be broken - all sorts of possibility intentionally built in but left for players thinking outside the box to find. Personally I find that spectacularly fun for MtG, but I wouldn't ever want to play a table-top game with that mindset, or against someone who was looking to exploit the mechanics in that way. I suspect MtG only works like that because there is zero set up time. No fun spending time setting up your units just for a lovely looking table top game for it then to just play out around your opponent's massively overpowered combo move.

Finally, and perhaps I'm weird on this, but I can also kind of respect a theoretical purity that gets in the way of playability. I'm thinking in particular of GW's abandoned Confrontation rulest's shooting rules. I admire the theoretical purity of a mechanism working on a percentage to hit that decreased with range and all sorts of other considerations but that could start well over 100% (he'll never miss from there). By theoretical purity I mean it finds a way to accurately model when shooting is incredibly deadly and when its much more likely to merely suppress/slow down the target. But I can also see why, when Jervis had to build a special slide-rule for playtesting, the studio said "This ain't gonna work".

PS: as someone whose dayjob involves understanding Aristotle's practical philosophy, the Doctrine of the Mean is best thought of as the centre of an archery target (equidistant from any point on the circumference) rather than a middle between only two extremes. There are lots of ways of going wrong in any scenario, including game design!

[Elbows]

I think mechanics are hugely important...as that is, essentially your game.  It's akin to saying that a Tesla and a 1960's muscle car will both get you from point A to point B...but how you get there is the important part.  What you experience along the way will differ vastly.

Mechanics can be innovative, clever, unique, or just fun.  A game can be difficult or easy...based on what mechanics you choose.  A game can be simple or crunchy...based on what mechanics you choose.

As mentioned above, in theory all we're doing is finding a way to produce a percentage chance that something occurs.  You "could" simply take all of your mechanics and 'math-hammer' them to a simple D100 roll for every aspect of your game.  That would "work", but it'd be boring and tedious to a point.

Some mechanics (fog of war stuff) actually can't be converted into a D100/percentage roll, so it's a mechanic which directly affects the player interaction/enjoyment.

People enjoy various common mechanics because there's something intrinsically interesting about rolling "more" dice, or drawing an unknown card, or rolling a certain number of successes that produce a special result, or tearing open a pack of CCG cards with the unknown contents inside.  I think the board game community showcases this well, with certain game mechanics being considered "American" or "Euro", etc.  They have categorized every type of board game based on its mechanics.

While effective, I don't think many people get excited about Avalon Hill style "Compare attributes of the attacker and defender and consult the chart 1.2.1.1A".  That's doing the same thing, but in a more boring fashion.

On the pragmatic side, I think mechanics or components can streamline a game or make a game far more easy/fluid to play...and that's a net positive.

[ced1106]

> Does it make a difference if you use cards rather than dice?

For dungeoncrawls, RPG's, and miniature wargames, absolutely. Cards open up gamespace (eg. hand management) that dice have never escaped to. Most dice mechanics, even though theoretically could be otherwise (eg. dice pools) end up being "target numbers", meaning you roll dice to try to beat a target number, either opposed dice (roll higher than your opponent's roll) or a fixed target number (eg. armor value, difficulty challenge number). As a result, differences in dice-based games are minor at best, evolution not revolution. And when you're paying hundreds of dollars for a new set of mini's, or need to convince your RPG group of making a switch to a new game system they have to learn, it's no wonder a handful of companies (eg. GW and D&D) own their markets (or you design rules as miniatures agnostic, eg. generic fantasy).

That's why Gloomhaven is so popular for dungeoncrawling boardgamers. Thematically, it's another dungeoncrawl, but mechanically, it's hand-management and spatial puzzles.

[Elbows]

Don't get me started on the benefits of card decks...(huge fan, and use...too many of them in almost all my games!).

Now, again, theoretically you could create tables using dice, and then mark off stuff, etc. etc. and try to get to the same result, but it's just easier with cards most of the time.

There are definitely some games (both tabletop, and RPG) which defy most convention and can be self-limiting or...suffer due to it.  My favourite RPG is Dungeon World, but it's game mechanics and the way it's played are anathema to people who are dyed-in-the-wool D&D players, etc.

Remember that tabletop game that used square spaces and miniatures and then you entered all the data into your cell phone to create the result of combat?  That was definitely a step too far for...apparently anyone, and it died an inglorious death.