How many new mechanics are there anyways?

[Raleel]

So, I was going to bitch like an old person about how people make their own damn system instead of just using someone else’s well trodden path, but instead I’ll turn it around and propose a discussion about Actually New Mechanics. How many of these are there actually?

there is a side discussion here about tuning your mechanics to get the setting representation you want, because there are lots of “new mechanics” that are somehow better for someone’s pet setting, snd really, they aren’t new, and they are poorly tested or the math is poorly thought out.

my contention is that there are actually pretty few of these

 

[EmperorNorton]

I think the question is flawed from the start though. As each game is the sum of its parts, and not individual mechanics. We may be rebuilding everything with the same cogs and pullies that we've been using for decades, but the arrangement of them can create something unique.

 

[Fenris-77]

Hmm. An interesting question. The Usage Die fits the bill. Personally I think it's a great mechanic, does what it says on the tin for sure and without much chance of knock on effects due to poor design planning.

The Brindlewood Bay mystery mechanic probably fits the bill too. I'd never seen anything like it previously and it's slick. Not to everyone's taste, but its a genius bit of design IMO.

 

[Raleel]

I’m thinking cortex plus/prime’s dice pools fit the bill. It tends to manipulate things within the system to get hyper focused on a feel. Firefly does an amazing job of doing that style of tv show. So does leverage. And I don’t think anyone could argue that MHRP does the best job of doing a comic book, though maybe not all of the superhero genre.

 

[VisionStorm]

I think that pretty much every usable mechanic has been tried at this point. All that's left is coming up with new fiddly and gimmicky ways to roll dice, or different configurations of rules and mechanical elements that have already been tried in other games. Or *shudders* vanity dice. But trying to come up with new novel ways to roll dice or do other stuff is usually just adding complications to the game.

 

[finarvyn]

I think that pretty much every usable mechanic has been tried at this point.

I used to think that in the 70's and then Amber Diceless blew me away. I guess it's hard to know what no one has thought of yet.

As far as system styles I've seen...
(1) Roll dice versus a static number, such as most wargames or D&D combat
(2) Each roll against each other
(3) Roll, and counter-roll only upon a hit (Warhammer miniatures)
(4) Dice pools, so maybe strategy in rolling

That would seem to be the main options. Then throw in stuff like Advantage (roll two, keep the better one) or 7th Sea's "roll and keep" (roll a pile and keep so many) add a bit of a wrinkle and one could argue if they are "new" or just a variant. As VisionStorm noted, things start to be more convoluted but essentially still follow the ideas above.

 

[Dr Jack]

I regularly buy and play new games with mechanics I've not experienced before. I don't think we've run out just yet.

I suppose to some extent it depends on how broadly you're willing to call a mechanic "the same" as another mechanic.

 

[Kommissarg]

I suppose to some extent it depends on how broadly you're willing to call a mechanic "the same" as another mechanic.

Yes, there is a lot of truth in that. Maybe one would have to differentiate between patterns/general mechanics and their actual implementations…which can be better or worse. I personally think that we are not at the end of innovation of new mechanics.

 

[Voros]

Lots

 

[ffilz]

In one sense, yea, there's not very many different mechanics to start with. As finarvyn points out "topologically" there are just a handful of mechanisms. Even if you allow that 2d6 is different than 3d6 is different than d20 (esp. roll high) is different than d100, there still aren't that many.

This contributes the the constant discussion of what qualifies as a "BRP Game." Are there really any other things common among all Chaosium games (sidestepping Pendragon and Hero Wars/Quest for a moment) that d100 roll under skill? Since that at least seems to be the primary commonality, this of course leads folks to label ANY game that is d100 roll under skill as BRP.

All of that said, I will still maintain that Cold Iron has at least two mechanics I have yet to see in ANY other game, which means they aren't available in a "published" RPG. The use of the standard normal distribution in all its open ended glory and the way magic points work in regards to how they regenerate and how that regeneration can be used to power ongoing spells (I'd love someone to point me to ANY other RPG that even seems like it might use either of those two mechanics).

But leaving all that behind, it's clear that different RPGs work for different folks and/or for different types of campaign. And in the end, it's no different than the fact that any of us who like to read or watch TV shows or movies have absorbed way more stories than the seven basic plots (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct..._Basic_Plots&usg=AOvVaw1Lki_SPE7vid6Z8iQ6m16o) would allow for if we considered all stories that were "topologically" the same were not new stories. The reason is that humans are creative people, and enjoy seeing other's creativity and the fluff that fleshes out one of the seven basic plots or the core RPG mechanic matter to us. Minor differences in mechanics mean something when they combine with the fluff to bring an RPG to life.

 

[thebigh]

Even if you allow that 2d6 is different than 3d6 is different than d20 (esp. roll high) is different than d100, there still aren't that many.

They absolutely are different. The bell-shaped probability curve of 3d6 and the flat distribution of 1d20 feel so much different in play that even if they're both "roll under" it's like chalk and cheese.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think that most of the innovation from the last few years has been less about the core resolution system and more about tweaks to that… like Advantage/Disadvantage… or other mechanics in the game and how they tweak the rules.

Inventory, harm, other consequences, class abilities (or equivalent)… I think these sub-systems of a game are where we see some new things. Or some old things used in new ways.

 

[ffilz]

They absolutely are different. The bell-shaped probability curve of 3d6 and the flat distribution of 1d20 feel so much different in play that even if they're both "roll under" it's like chalk and cheese.

I was referencing the point finarvyn made that at a very high level, roll dice is a single mechanic. But yes, the different randomizers I listed definitely feel different in play. And that IS before you add fluff on top of them.

 

[Fenris-77]

Hmm, yeah. 'New' core resolution mechanics aren't going to be thick on the ground. New mechanics generally is a fuller bowl to pick through.

 

[Telok]

Well lets see...

Does trading sex for goodies count as a new mechanic if I publish, or is it still the oldest mechanic?

The Monty Python game may open up new possibilities for catapulting dice at minis instead of fucking around with numbers.

There's the one with flicking bullets into shot glasses.

I've done D&D as a drinking game, but haven't seen anything seriously published.

I saw one once that used a cat as a randomizer. I should look that up again because I don't think it was published, just a joke/meme thing.

Could we do something with exploding stuff in microwaves? That's always fun and hasn't been done yet.

 

[Fenris-77]

I saw one once that used a cat as a randomizer. I should look that up again because I don't think it was published, just a joke/meme thing.

There is indeed a completely usable if not very serious set of rules for using your cat as the vehicle for action adjudication. I'm a cat person so I thought it was awesome.

 

[Ravenswing]

my contention is that there are actually pretty few of these

Far fewer than the companies desperately trying to pretend that Their Product is New! and Cool! and Groundbreaking!, that's for sure. It's not that I'm shopping for game systems at this point, but the endless gimmicks (for instance) to avoid something so "old fashioned" as a straight d100/3d6/d20 roll to resolve actions got tiresome decades ago.

 

[AsenRG]

I suppose to some extent it depends on how broadly you're willing to call a mechanic "the same" as another mechanic.

Yes, there is a lot of truth in that. Maybe one would have to differentiate between patterns/general mechanics and their actual implementations…which can be better or worse. I personally think that we are not at the end of innovation of new mechanics.

I concur with those two and actually would go a step further: it depends on what counts as "a mechanic".
Why? Well, to me Pendragon is undoubtedly part of the BRP family. Despite the fact that it uses d20 roll-under, has no Intelligence stat, uses an opposed roll instead of attack-parry, and damage is a function of the knight, not the weapon. So the only "new" part in it is Passions. And they're brilliant, though you can argue they were already used in Griffin Mountains.

 

[Fenris-77]

Maybe some granular discussion of what counts as a mechanic might help us out here? I think it might. Some people seem pretty focused on mechanics as core resolution, so what die/system (or whatever) a game has us roll to do stuff generally. So, generally, die type and combinations that govern success in declared PC actions that effect the game state. So d20 roll under, d20 with rising DC, PbtA's 2d6, etc etc. I'd call these something like core mechanics, as they tend to be the core of how a given system actually functions.

In addition to these core mechanics, there is also a whole universe of specific mechanics, which is an easy general term for mechanics designed to do something specific in a system. Sometimes these are a version of a core mechanic and sometimes they are their own thing. I might ad a third catch-all called bespoke mechanics that escape the core/specifc dichotomy, but it's probably not essential. In many cases these rely less on the die being rolled and more on the constraints and description of the specific case in question. For example, the Panic mechanic from the Aliens RPG isn't new in terms of die being rolled, but was quite revelatory in terms of the results of the roll and how the input/output form the mechanic ties into the rest of gameplay. I'd probably put the Usage die in all it's forms here as well, although you might argue for it as a core mechanic and I wouldn't argue.

Neither of these terms is supposed to be final or absolute, but simply useful in discussing what a mechanic is based at least in part on its design and relationship to whatever fundamental game play looks like for the system in question. Perhaps what I'm getting at is that a 'mechanic' is more than just die type, but refers to anything in a rules set that defines, governs, or impacts playloops and/or adjudication.

 

[TJS]

I think we need to qualify things to take on board some of the constraints.

Tabletop rpgs usually have the issue is that they're made by small companies or individuals without access to much in the way of resources of playtesting.

An rpg with actual real extensive playtesting over a period of years and the capacity too regularly update itself (a little like Wotc were doing with 4e errata - but before the time when the technological conditions were right for that to be something acceptable) could potentially do a lot more with complex interactions and the capacity to do this could result in attempting quite distinct mechanical solutions, but no rpg company really has the resources to do this.

The other constraint is dice rolling at the table needs to be manageable and not require excessive cognitive load, however, a game that was designed to be run purely through a VTT need not have those constraints and you could have a mechanic where you roll huge pools of D20s or something like that which would been insane to do at the table.

Basically, so long as the problems remain the same the solutions end up looking similar.

 

[Fenris-77]

Basically, so long as the problems remain the same the solutions end up looking similar.

If that were the case I wouldn't be, as I am, so very impressed when I see something novel, mechanically, in a game that really impresses me.

 

[EmperorNorton]

I will say by the way that if you do want to talk about a specific system that I thought was new and interesting: The initiative system from Shinobigami is something I've never seen before.

At the start of each round, every player takes out a d6 and puts it on any side of their choice, with their hand covering it and then reveal simultaneously. That is their initiative. Higher numbers go first, BUT, if you roll equal to or under that number on your action (which is a 2d6 roll) then you fumble, so going faster means you are more likely to tragically fuck up. Additionally, range on attacks is calculated based on the difference between your initiative and your target's initiative (as initiative in the game is categorized as how fast you are moving, cause these are mystical ninjas and you can go REALLY fast, and you need to be going near the same speed to hit with a melee attack).

This creates an interesting mindgame between players (as the game is primarily PvPish). Also, it allows some neat ideas in ways to affect it, like a power that lets you reveal two dice and then pick which one you want to use after seeing the other players.

 

[AsenRG]

I will say by the way that if you do want to talk about a specific system that I thought was new and interesting: The initiative system from Shinobigami is something I've never seen before.

At the start of each round, every player takes out a d6 and puts it on any side of their choice, with their hand covering it and then reveal simultaneously. That is their initiative. Higher numbers go first, BUT, if you roll equal to or under that number on your action (which is a 2d6 roll) then you fumble, so going faster means you are more likely to tragically fuck up. Additionally, range on attacks is calculated based on the difference between your initiative and your target's initiative (as initiative in the game is categorized as how fast you are moving, cause these are mystical ninjas and you can go REALLY fast, and you need to be going near the same speed to hit with a melee attack).

This creates an interesting mindgame between players (as the game is primarily PvPish). Also, it allows some neat ideas in ways to affect it, like a power that lets you reveal two dice and then pick which one you want to use after seeing the other players.

For some reason that makes me picture two copies of The Flash running side to side while punching each other...

 

[EmperorNorton]

For some reason that makes me picture two copies of The Flash running side to side while punching each other...

You are not actually that wrong, here are the translated names for various initiative values:

0: Mundane
1: Ghost Walk
2: Shadow Run
3: Neuro Speed
4: Sonic Speed
5: Bullet Speed
6: Light Speed
7: FTL

Like, even an initiative of 1 is considered faster than a normal human, and 7 (which is possible with some abilities) is legit FTL. Shinobigami is dumb overpowered.

(Also, I have no idea what "neuro speed" means.)

 

[SJB]

The traditional core mechanic is that a GM describes a situation, the players describe their responses and some kind of resolution occurs.

I suppose the newer mechanic is that the players describe the situation themselves using some kind of protocol, then describe their responses and there is a resolution.

As far as I know dice, cards and chits are the only resolution systems that are widespread and have lasted.

 

[JAMUMU]

I think the last time I came across a mechanic I thought novel was Blades in the Dark. Small dice pools, only looking for 4+ on at least one die for partial, 6 for total success, two 6s crit; as opposed to roll all the dices and count up all the successes. Cortex is similar, I guess, though I prefer BitD's slightly more traditional character set up.

 

[VisionStorm]

They absolutely are different. The bell-shaped probability curve of 3d6 and the flat distribution of 1d20 feel so much different in play that even if they're both "roll under" it's like chalk and cheese.

From the point of view of mathematics? Sure. From the point of view of tactile experience and to an extend game play experience? Ok. But from the point of view of actual game mechanics, 3d6+Mod vs TN (for example) is not some innovative new mechanic compared to 2d6+Mod TN. That's just adding an extra die to an existing mechanic. And using a d20 instead is not a new mechanic either. That's just swapping the die type used. But you're still using the same tried and true "roll plus modifier vs target number".

Making them roll under instead of Die+Mod vs TN is kinda different, but if you're adding modifiers to your score to represent "difficulty" that's bound to end up being mathematically the same as an equivalent TN increase/decrease in a roll over system. Making difficulty an extra die roll instead of a fixed number is kinda different as well, but you're also adding extra complexity to something that's very close to the same mechanic.

So, are there "lots" of "new" game mechanics people could potentially come up with (as some have implied)? Technically? Sure. But how different are they from what already exists? And how much bang are you getting from your buck with them? Are you really adding something innovative with them, or are they simply "different" for the sake of being different?

That's why I think that most of what can be tried has been tried. And almost everything that hasn't is likely to be just a gimmick or added complexity to stuff that already exists.

 

[Raleel]

I think the question is flawed from the start though. As each game is the sum of its parts, and not individual mechanics. We may be rebuilding everything with the same cogs and pullies that we've been using for decades, but the arrangement of them can create something unique.

Then examples of not new mechanics that are somehow radically different in a particular game, when in some context, would be fair game.

I regularly buy and play new games with mechanics I've not experienced before. I don't think we've run out just yet.

I suppose to some extent it depends on how broadly you're willing to call a mechanic "the same" as another mechanic.

I deliberately left it broad. I have my own ideas on mechanics (and I tend to be a bit curmudgeonly about them) but I’m not the only person at the table.

 

[AsenRG]

You are not actually that wrong, here are the translated names for various initiative values:

0: Mundane
1: Ghost Walk
2: Shadow Run
3: Neuro Speed
4: Sonic Speed
5: Bullet Speed
6: Light Speed
7: FTL

Like, even an initiative of 1 is considered faster than a normal human, and 7 (which is possible with some abilities) is legit FTL. Shinobigami is dumb overpowered.

(Also, I have no idea what "neuro speed" means.)

My guess would be "as fast as a guy with a neural interface", bug I've never read Shinobigami.

 

[Dr Jack]

From the point of view of mathematics? Sure. From the point of view of tactile experience and to an extend game play experience? Ok. But from the point of view of actual game mechanics, 3d6+Mod vs TN (for example) is not some innovative new mechanic compared to 2d6+Mod TN. That's just adding an extra die to an existing mechanic. And using a d20 instead is not a new mechanic either. That's just swapping the die type used. But you're still using the same tried and true "roll plus modifier vs target number".

I don't find this a particularly useful way to analyse mechanical differences. To me this feels like saying that there have been hardly any real innovations in car design since the Model T Ford - they all have four wheels driven by an engine and control direction by rotating a steering wheel. Changing the dice, especially changing from a single dice to adding multiple dice, gives a very different experience due to the big differences in probability.

Also, there's plenty of significant mechanical differences that aren't about which way of rolling dice you're using but rather what your using those dice for, or how you're generating those numbers. Take Heart, for example, you can say the system of Stress and Fallout is just a roll-under mechanic but it's doing something radically different from the roll-under mechanic in WFRP. Similarly the way that Heart bases your chances of success on your skill and where you are when you're doing that skill gives a remarkably different feel to the common approach of skill+stat.

 

[SavAce]

This comes down to the definition of mechanic, for sure. Like, in the abstract sense you can have a mechanic like... "Every X period of time, roll Y and if Y exceeds threshold Z, increase the value of A by 1", and it could be used to regain health, restore mana, or in a commerce/industry system to model accumulation of stock of various resources, or the advancement of a civilization through tech levels over time, or any of a number of things anyone could think to use the general mechanic for in a more concrete sense. Maybe time period X is set based on your Stamina, or number of workers in your factories. Maybe Threshold Z is determined by your rating in Fire Magics, or how cutting edge your scientists are.

I tend to think a good amount of the mechanics in this more abstract sense have already been uncovered and used, but... that you don't really need a steady supply of new mechanics to come up with new RPG systems. These mechanics are like a toolbox or a set of words. You can build things people have never seen before with wood, a saw, hammer and nails kinda forever, even if other tools are never invented. Likewise, someone can write new books even if we never add a new word to the language.

 

[lategamer]

I think that while we are using dice and comparable randomisers, this will come up. I mean we can find new ways to put the proverbial lipstick on the d30, but end of the day it's going to involve rolling under or over something.

I am faintly annoyed that card based resolution systems are less popular. Seems to be to be random, yet the possibility of tactical thought. But then I guess there are decent dice rollers but a digital card management system is a far off dream.

 

[robertsconley]

the way magic points work in regards to how they regenerate and how that regeneration can be used to power ongoing spells (I'd love someone to point me to ANY other RPG that even seems like it might use either of those two mechanics).

While it is not explicitly called out like in Cold Iron the way the math works out in GURPS Magic it can work out to be the same thing with the Recover Energy spell and high skill levels with a particular spell.

Cold Iron

GURPS

 

[lategamer]

While it is not explicitly called out like in Cold Iron the way the math works out in GURPS Magic it can work out to be the same thing with the Recover Energy spell and high skill levels with a particular spell.

Cold Iron

GURPS

Not the same as this but 'similar' is the way in SCION where you can 'imbue' points of Legend in an activity rather than 'spending' them. I like the ides of having stuff that takes up your 'magicalness' without necessarily having to be concentrated on all the time

 

[robertsconley]

Not the same as this but 'similar' is the way in SCION where you can 'imbue' points of Legend in an activity rather than 'spending' them. I like the ides of having stuff that takes up your 'magicalness' without necessarily having to be concentrated on all the time

I just took a look at GURPS Thamautology and if you use Threshold Magic (or unlimited mana from S. John Ross article) it is even more functionally similar. Basically you can cast using all the mana you want but have to keep a tally of what is spent. Once you exceed a threshold (usually 30 mana) "bad things" start to happen to the caster. Your tally gets reduced by 8 at sunrise. So it is possible to maintain spells indefinitely as long you don't spend more than 8 mana a day maintaining them.

 

[VisionStorm]

I don't find this a particularly useful way to analyse mechanical differences. To me this feels like saying that there have been hardly any real innovations in car design since the Model T Ford - they all have four wheels driven by an engine and control direction by rotating a steering wheel. Changing the dice, especially changing from a single dice to adding multiple dice, gives a very different experience due to the big differences in probability.

This is a false equivalence, because advances in car technology involve vastly more changes, and separate technological innovations leading up to those changes, than just adding an extra die or using a different die type to the same underlying mechanic. That's largely just cosmetic alterations. Even to the degree that changes in play experience might be a factor, you're still dealing with the same mechanic expressed in a different way. And all those different die configurations (3d6, 1d20, etc.) have pretty much been tried at this point. So telling me that the game play experience of rolling 3d6+Mod is different from rolling 1d20+Mod isn't really telling me what else you can do beyond that.

Also, there's plenty of significant mechanical differences that aren't about which way of rolling dice you're using but rather what your using those dice for, or how you're generating those numbers. Take Heart, for example, you can say the system of Stress and Fallout is just a roll-under mechanic but it's doing something radically different from the roll-under mechanic in WFRP. Similarly the way that Heart bases your chances of success on your skill and where you are when you're doing that skill gives a remarkably different feel to the common approach of skill+stat.

I don't really know Heart, so I don't know how the mechanic you're referencing works.

 

[VisionStorm]

I tend to think a good amount of the mechanics in this more abstract sense have already been uncovered and used, but... that you don't really need a steady supply of new mechanics to come up with new RPG systems. These mechanics are like a toolbox or a set of words. You can build things people have never seen before with wood, a saw, hammer and nails kinda forever, even if other tools are never invented. Likewise, someone can write new books even if we never add a new word to the language.

I think this is pretty much what it comes down to at this point. Coming up with new ways to use what already exists. But just because you're using an existing mechanic that doesn't mean that the game isn't different, but you're usually gonna end up using some combination of variants of existing mechanics applied in different ways than existing games.

 

[TJS]

Honestly, I don't even want innovative systems.

Give me innovative settings and play structures, and then don't waste them by attaching them to some new experimental system that reinvents the wheel and can't be playtested properly.

 

[SmallbutVicious]

I don't find this a particularly useful way to analyse mechanical differences. To me this feels like saying that there have been hardly any real innovations in car design since the Model T Ford - they all have four wheels driven by an engine and control direction by rotating a steering wheel. Changing the dice, especially changing from a single dice to adding multiple dice, gives a very different experience due to the big differences in probability.

It's also worth considering that things feel different to play even there's no mathematical difference.

Consider the difference between trying to mind control someone in a game like D&D 5e versus something like Shadow of the Demon Lord. In one, the target makes a Wisdom save with the target number set by your spellcasting ability. In the other, you make a spellcasting check with the target number set by the target's Will score. These games use an essentially identical resolution mechanic and mathematically the two approaches are the same. But it feels different to the players, and the feel of the game matters to the experience of playing it.

 

[Sloth_in_a_bowl]

Given the large number of deck builder board games including dungeon crawlers such as Arkham Horror the card game. I have yet to experience a deck builder RPG. Where your character is made of a deck of cards a they pull a set number of cards per round to base their potential actions and/or successes on.