The Grand Unifying Mechanic for Everything

[Easy E]

I seem to recall something called the Grand Unified Theory in particle physics.  I am not a particle physicist, or much of a science lay-person for that matter.  I seem to recall it was a theory to bring Quantum physics and General Relativity together into one framework for understanding the universe.  Binding weak forces like electricity and magnetism together with the strange and unknown powers that bind the smallest atomic structures together.  This is referred to in physics as the Theory of Everything. 

So, what does this have to do with Wargaming? A strong set of wargaming rules should also run under a Theory of Everything or Grand Unifying Theory model.  Simply put, if rolling over a Target Number on a d6 is how you resolve the main mechanic of your game, then all game mechanics should use this same model. 

This is a surprisingly controversial contention!  There is a large number of successful games that do not use a Grand Unified Theory of Everything in their game design.  Instead, their mechanics may run on a number of mini-games or alternate methods for resolving gameplay interactions.  Again, put simply a game without a Grand Unified Theory of Everything may have you roll to beat a Target Number on a d6 for shooting, but then have you add up Mods with the highest winning when it is time to hit something with a stick.  Two different mechanics used to solved different game interactions. 

You can read the full blog post at the Blood and Spectacles Blog for more details if that is your thing:
http://bloodandspectacles.blogspot.com/2023/03/wargame-design-grand-unifying-mechanic.html

However, the purpose of this thread is what games have used this really well, and what was the basis of the Grand Unifying Mechanic that the game used?  What were the benefits and the downsides to this in the game itself? 

[Fitz]

I played a ruleset many, many years ago (I don't recall its name) that was supposed to be a "one size fits all" toolkit to play any period, any genre, and it used only percentile dice.

It sort of succeeded in its aim, inasmuch as it was possible to play a (fairly brief) game of Roman legions vs. US Marines, but it did nothing really well, and the overall impression was one of blandness. Every task was really just like every other, and I think the dogmatic adherence to having every single resolution roll on d100 contributed to that.

[gweirda]

Simply put, if rolling over a Target Number on a d6 is how you resolve the main mechanic of your game, then all game mechanics should use this same model.

... what games have used this really well, and what was the basis of the Grand Unifying Mechanic that the game used?  What were the benefits and the downsides to this in the game itself?

A WW1 air combat game used a 'dice pool - 6s are good 1s are bad' mechanic throughout.  The only thing a player had to figure was 'how many dice do I want/have to roll?' which was (relatively) easy to remember and produced a risk/reward element to the decision-making process that put everything within the same framework.  Lots of dice (of various colors) needed to be on hand to pick through.  I personally liked the gambling style of play that resulted more than the hassle of the dice bucket(s) - I suppose it helped that in dogfighting games there's not much terrain to get in the way of a roll of lots of dice!

[FramFramson]

Having a theme and a distinct identity helps to make a ruleset stand out, as well as giving it a hook (or at least a familiar point of reference, if it's mostly cribbing from an existing ruleset). However, being dogmatic about the theme or forcing it where it doesn't fit usually ends up failing miserably. Better to have 2-3 core elements which you can mix in various weights for different aspects of the rules.

[SteveBurt]

The designer may want more variance in melee results than in shooting. In which case having the same mechanic for both makes no sense. For instance Fire & Fury uses a d10 and a chart for firing, but opposed d10 rolls for melee. Congo comes close to what you are after, with 5+ being a success, and troops using d6, d8, or d10 depending on quality. Same mechanic for shooting and melee, but outcomes are assessed differently.

[ithoriel]

I understand the desire to have a single unifying mechanism but I do worry that it often leads to the "If all you have is a hammer then every problem becomes a nail" syndrome.

In life some things just work differently and need different solutions to model them properly.

[Elbows]

I definitely have "workhorse" mechanics for each game.  However, I almost never find a mechanic whcih solves "all" of a game's situations.  As mentioned above, when you have one core mechanic - particularly for a large game, you very quickly run out of maneuver space for your future products/units, etc.

You can see the comical problems Games Workshop has when it comes to 40K and Age of Sigmar, where they trip over the very narrow box they've put themselves into by having "easy" core mechanics...which suddenly need to accommodate 500 differeing units in various scales from gretchin to knights, etc.

[jon_1066]

Agree.  It is too restrictive to straight jacket yourself with a single mechanic/test.

It is also a bit arbitrary as well.  Eg you have a single mechanic, is it also used for movement?

I think conventions within a game are good, eg low bad, high good.  Is this a game with variable target rolls on a single dice type or single target rolls with variable dice.  Do bonuses offer re-rolls or do they offer larger dice or lower target scores.  Keep that the same throughout.

[Dan55]

I agree about the advantages of a unified game mechanic for representing different aspects of play within a single ruleset.  Once you've learned that mechanic, you can use it for other similar effects within the game, making the game easier to learn and remember.
Of course different mechanics are required for different things.

[fred]

Too many mechanisms is confusing, and too much variance is confusing. But I think one mechanism is probably too simplistic, but trying to use as few as possible and be consistent is good!

Take FFoL it certainly has a core mechanic that quality is determined by number of sides on a dice (d8/d10/d12) and success is by trying to score a target number. This applies for skill checks and shooting. And is easy to apply for oddities that crop up in the game.

But for melee it uses opposed dice rolls. Which works fine. It’s still the same core principal, dice size, and high is good. But you are competing directly with your melee opponent.

[nou]

The only thing I think has to be unified within a game, is success-fail direction, i.e. are '1's good or are they bad. If the game uses some mechanics one way, some the other way, it is a red flag for me and indicates not well thought out game.

However, if something can be unified, it should be unified. Even if it means, that an overarching mechanic would be more complex than each of the specialised ones. We learn by repetition. If you're using always the same method, with perhaps different modifiers or different dice sizes, then it quickly becomes transparent and doesn't interrupt the flow of the game or immersion. Multiple different mechanics, especially for similar aspects of the game, are unnecessary distraction.