Blogs are immaterial and I should update this thing more often.
One thing I received from last time was for me to go a bit deeper into the ideas behind "Mechanics" the nitty gritty number-crunchy nightmare fuel which has many, many, people lose their minds in a desperate attempt to create.
Don't worry, stop panicking, I'm here.
And it won't get any better.
In 1999 and the early 2000's, veteran game designer Ron Edwards, an influential indie developer which you've probably never heard of, coined the GNS Theory, which spring boarded from an older threefold theory.
GNS, in its simplest, states that there are three methods of interaction and engagement: Gamism, Narrativism, and Simulationism. While GNS has (and rightly so) been criticized due to some narrowminded thought and holding N on a pedestal, we can break it down pretty easily.
I bring up GNS because here's the secret, I can't tell you what mechanics or dice to use. As the dice are simply a "Method of Interaction" with the world, it's about the intent and ideas behind how, why, when, and where those dice are used. Whether you're a die hard D20 fan or you'll sacrifice yourself upon the alter on D6 Dicepool, the idea is that any dice "Can" be used to emulate any idea, but it's understanding what those ideas are and how to shape your mechanics around them.
Hence I've changed around one word, creating the KNS Model to help YOU(!) design your game. Simply it's to break down broad methods to help you write something and why they are the way they are. The three are Kinetic, Narrativist, and Simulationist.
===
Our newest edition will be our first because the alphabet demands it. Kinetic design can be described as "Game First" design, prompting a kinetic and tactile feel to play. All aspects of your game are built around doing just that, being a game first, a story or simulation second.
A popular example of Kinetic design would be Dungeons & Dragons, the big boy himself. As the entire game is built around performing a gamist cycle: Go To Place, Do Thing, Acquire Treasure. D&D is never about telling an exciting story or simulating the tense exchange of blows with blades, no, it's about rolling a D20 to hit a target's AC to reduce their Hitpoints down by the weapon's damage.
Kinetic games thrive off that idea, as the name implies it's punchy and to the point, refusing to elaborate or acknowledge parts that may bog things down in any method. Kinetic design is one of purely game thinking and theory, with mechanics to assist in that concept and little else. There are immediate risks and rewards with trackable concepts to understand.
Board games understand this philosophy entirely, as playing Ticket to Ride isn't simulating laying down tracks, having to transport the steel, hiring the right workers, understanding the logistics behind it. Nor is it narrative, as there is no story except what the board is set with the "Player Stories" taking precedence. I want to strangle my friend because he cut me off in Dresden with his stupid train.
A fully committed Kinetic designed game is one about abstraction of concepts to facilitate the act of performing those actions. I hit you with a gun that deals 1d6 Lightning Damage, I trigger this Engine to gain +2 Movement, I add my +3 Computers to hack into the mainframe, etc.
The main benefit of this design philosophy is that, well, it's easy to understand. Using D&D as an example, you don't need to be well versed in the intricacies of Kabbalistic Magic or the differences of a Claymore vs Zweihander. You need to know that when you use a spell slot of then 3rd Level you cast Fireball which is going to deal 8d6 damage and that a Greatsword does 2d6 damage.
This benefit is also a grand drawback, Kinetic design may be punchy and to the point, but you lose the "Background" to the situation. At its worst this can lead to nonsensical "Universe" situations, but valid with the Rules. One of the most famous of these being Naked Dwarf Syndrome from Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 1st Edition, rendering a competent player's dwarf, while naked, almost immune to damage. That abstraction can also lead to losing the defined features of it, it's not a Plasma Cannon, it's a 3d6 Weapon, it's not the Sacred Armor of Arnor, it's +2 Platemail, I'm not clinging to the side of the mountain holding on to dear life, the TN is 3 Successes and I have 8d10 to my roll due to my skill allocations.
Kinetic Design is "Fun" Design, but it's "Fun" to watch paint dry with friends, you need to give players a reason to continue enjoying it.
===
Narrative design is the second on the block, and perhaps the best, poorly, defined subject. Narrative design is best summarized as "Story First" with mechanics in place to assist with the continued existence of that story. Games with a focus on this design philosophy often have a few things in common, the most noticeable is that there is already a "Story" baked into the game in some kind of way.
Now what do I mean by that? A popular game, and one I've covered on here, would be Golden Sky Stories. GSS is built from the ground up to tell the story of the Henge, their lives, and the situations they find themselves in. The game doesn't really need to go into depth about the nature of their powers or the nitty gritty details about their existence.
They are the Henge, they are in a town, and they do things in that town.
This story drives the entire game forward, and this story is both well-defined and vague enough to fill in the gaps. Using GSS, the game can't really be used for anything else other than its particular tale of "Young Creatures Learning About the World in a Village" and the game struggles to support anything else outside of that hyper-specific category. A narrative game has to understand and dedicate itself 100% to the tale it wants to tell.
These tales are supported by mechanics with less-than-defined results more often than not. As a story is a fluctuating thing that fits the characters and the author, this story is being held up by a group of people telling it together. These narratives mechanics drive that point home by being open to interpretation for the players and game master, allowing for them to "Fit the Flow" more than a Kinetic or Simulationist system.
A complete narrative game is a collective story, with the mechanics in place to simply facilitate discussion and continue down the path. However, most narrative games tend to have light mechanics, and if they do have a heavier, more detailed, set of them, they are often in service to a particular story beat or set of tropes mandated by the narrative.
On the positive side, narrative design allows you to craft and detail things as you please without needing you to break your back in researching obscure topics or having to reason out complex concepts. This control over the story is a boon, allowing you, the designer, to craft the game in a particular way that you want it to go.
The problem?
Narrative games rely . . . on the narrative. If that story you are telling isn't actually interesting, have any meaningful moments, or is just a blank slate, those story mechanics stop meaning much. Going too heavy on the narrative also removes some of the agency a player may have, as the story, tropes, and expectations prevent them from making something truly their own. Those loose interpretations and ideas may seem good now, but it has the players lose control and force them to obey the GM's calls, which may change depending on the moment.
"Generic" Narrative games should, by all means, have a dedicated story to tell. If you fail to accomplish that, you end up with a lot of "Roll D6 to Determine How Vague the Result Is" which is about as satisfyingly as being caught in the rain without an umbrella.
===
Our final method to madness, is Simulationist. Which is perhaps the one which has people be most concerned hearing, probably the first thing coming to your head is something like Phoenix Command or other hyper-crunch games that track everything.
The secret to Simulationism is that it doesn't "have" to be that. Simulationism is all about putting the "World" first before the game or narrative, striving to tell its story with making you live in the world its taking place in.
We'll use Phoenix Command as stated above, PC was arguably one of the first games to truly attempt to simulate modern combat, including 39 separate hit locations and having guns perform farily accurately, well, as accurate as the table can simulate them. This is a bit on the extreme side, but Phoenix Command's extreme detail was to simulate a modern gunfight, including everything that can, will, and has gone wrong in it. Getting shot in the chest is pretty damn bad, getting shot in the neck is a death sentence, and having your leg clipped is dangerous at best.
Why? Because GETTING SHOT IS BAD FOR YOUR HEALTH. A gun in a Kinetic system may do 3d8 damage, and a Narrative system may put in a severe condition. But Simulationist games will give you the tools needed to show you the ins and outs of it.
Now, Simulationism isn't always about Combat or Actions, it can be about "How you interact with the world" as well. Engine Heart is not a complex game, but it simulates the efforts a tiny robot has to undergo to survive in that world, from having to manage energy consumption to having to worry about being "reprogrammed" rather than strictly just dying.
The core behind Simulationsim is that you are attempting to make your world feel alive, to make your players a part of the world, even if the gameplay suffers and narrative is restricted. Let's take something simple to understand, such as driving a car. In a gamist system, each vehicle may have a "Handling" rating that gives a +1 or +2 to a check to pull off a stunt. A Narrative system may not even worry about the car, just putting on a Condition of "High Speed" or something similar. A Simulationist game, at the most extreme, would have max speed, handling, tires, engines, and everything else, making that getting in a Sportscar and Big Bubba's Truck feel different, making a turn going 140 mph is difficult and requires pre-planning to compensate the momentum, then there's weight to worry about, and this isn't even factoring in if the car is even decent condition to begin with.
Simulationism is about putting you in the seat of that car, making you think on your toes about hitting the handbrake to make a turn, but oh god that turn is too tight for you, so you're going to scrape alongside the side. Investment in the setting, the world, and ideas that game wants you to be invested in.
At its most extreme, Simulationism can bog down a game pretty hard, tracking every little thing and every little aspect down to the most minute detail, making sure that you have the right clip loaded, or double checking that the engine on the plane isn't critically damaged. On a positive note, Simulating the world can make it feel actually alive, removing the player with their ideas and placing them in that world, forcing them to think ahead and be a part of that ecosystem. The major issue with Simulation is that it can be VERY dull if done poorly, as abstraction helps us "skip" to the entertaining bits.
D&D is not a simulation because it's boring to do that, it goes against what the game is trying to do, it simply abstracts your ability to "Not Take Damage." Golden Sky Stories is not a simulation because it has zero interest in doing that, it's about being the Henge and telling a story with those characters. However, taking a bullet in Phoenix Command may take five minutes to resolve for a two second round, but you took that bullet because you weren't in cover and they have a killing ground over you, luckily it only grazed your shoulder, it hurts like hell and the adrenaline in your system spiked, but you'll live.
Simulation prompts though, but too much prompts autism.
===
And that's the end of our KNS, the most important thing to remember is that when you're going through the first steps of designing your game, is to determine what you -want- to make. Making a hardcore simulation of sky piracy is going to be a lot different than making a game about the romantic pulp of high skies swashbuckling.
When designing any system in your game, it's going to have aspects of KNS in it, something may be more narrative, while others more gamist, and even a system to simulate something. The core idea is to have that core mechanic really sing to do what you want it to do.
To summarize, when designing your core mechanic, think about what you want to accomplish. Something crunchy and simulationist is going to need a more robust system to track values and express bonuses, but a narrative game with a focus on tropes, may not need anything more advanced than a die roll or two. Your options will begin to narrow down, desires align with needs, and suddenly, you'll have the perfect idea.
Which is why I recommend that you read everything, find games that do what you want and see what they did. Ask yourself what you're trying to get across in the world, and most importantly, what do YOU find "Fun to Do." Writing mechanics you don't want to play is a surefire way of not caring about them.
That's all the insight I can offer on the matter. You must choose from what you know.
Commentaires