Philosophical: Definition Of Mechanic

[schir1964]

Another thread has sparked my curiosity.

Here is the question or viewpoint:

What restriction or limit should there be (if any) for defining the a level of immutability for a mechanic?

I'll try to explain this better.

If you define a mechanic with a set of descriptive rules, should there be minimum level of definition such that the mechanic may not be altered by other mechanics (such as Adders/Subtracters/Limitations/Advantages)?

At what point does modifying a mechanic from its base definition change the mechanic into another mechanic altogether?

Examples

Desolidification: This power by definition means the character is unaffected by physical means by default. Should this definition be immutable and unchangeable by other rules/mechanics, or should all the components be removable/changeable?

Aid Variant (Succor): This variant removes the base definition of Aid (Fade Rate/Max Level). Should this definition be immutable and unchangeable by other rules/mechanics, or should all the components be removable/changeable?

Healing Variant (Regeneration): This variant removes the base definition of Healing (Max Reuse Time). Should this definition be immutable and unchangeable by other rules/mechanics, or should all the components be removable/changeable?

Running: This power by definition has a restriction of working only on semi-solid non-vertical surfaces. Should this be immutable and unchangeable by other rules/mechanics, or should all the components be removable/changeable?


Should there be a limit that defines when the mechanic has ceased being that mechanic and something else, or should all mechanics be broken down into discrete definition components that can be removed or added at will?

Thoughts/Opinions

- Christopher Mullins

[ghost-angel]

A New Mechanic is something does something Completely New.

(and Regeneration removes more than Max Level, it also restricts what you apply it to).

Regeneration "heals" back Body, it does something Mechanically similar to Healing, but under a different set of sub rules - thus it's an Optional Subset.

Energy Blast and Killing Attack do something similar, but have different Mechanical Adding Rules that are separate enough to make them similar, but different.

[schir1964]

A New Mechanic is something does something Completely New.

(and Regeneration removes more than Max Level, it also restricts what you apply it to).

Regeneration "heals" back Body, it does something Mechanically similar to Healing, but under a different set of sub rules - thus it's an Optional Subset.

Energy Blast and Killing Attack do something similar, but have different Mechanical Adding Rules that are separate enough to make them similar, but different.
Are you saying that Healing should be built with components that can be removed, in this case Max Level, and have a Limitation as to what it affects?

So are you saying that Energy Blast and Killing Attack are immutable so that they can not be changed into each other?

- Christopher Mullins

[ghost-angel]

Sigh... I'm saying you got what Regeneration is wrong.


The only immutability a Mechanic should have is that it shouldn't do something another Mechanic already does.

Beyond that mangle away.

[schir1964]

Sigh... I'm saying you got what Regeneration is wrong.
No, I simply listed what was needed that pertained the question at hand.
Sorry for the confusion.

Yes, I did not give a full listing of the mechanics that Regeneration uses.

The only immutability a Mechanic should have is that it shouldn't do something another Mechanic already does.

Beyond that mangle away.
That pretty much answers my question. Thanks.

- Christopher Mullins

[ghost-angel]

No, I simply listed what was needed that pertained the question at hand.
Sorry for the confusion.

Yes, I did not give a full listing of the mechanics that Regeneration uses.

Actually - no you didn't.

Rengeration:
-Removes the Max Reuse Time.
-Removes that ability to apply it (Healing) to any Power or Characteristic other than Body.

Those are the two changes that the Optional Rule applies to Healing.

[schir1964]

Rengeration:
-Removes the Max Reuse Time.
Duly noted and corrected for accuracy.

- Christopher Mullins

[ghost-angel]

Not only am I insulted by your rude correction.

But I'm going to now point out your complete and total inability to READ THE BOOK.

5ER page 187 - bottom of the page
Regeneration only applies to BODY.

I AWAIT YOUR APOLOGY.
If one is NOT forthcoming I'm reporting your post as a PERSONAL ATTACK.

[schir1964]

Not only am I insulted by your rude correction.

But I'm going to now point out your complete and total inability to READ THE BOOK.

5ER page 187 - bottom of the page
Regeneration only applies to BODY.

I AWAIT YOUR APOLOGY.
If one is NOT forthcoming I'm reporting your post as a PERSONAL ATTACK.
What?

Are you serious?

If a moderator agrees that I have posted a personal attack against you, I'll certainly abide by whatever they mandate, but that was not the intent of my post.
Anyway, feel free to report me if you think you must.

- Christopher Mullins

[ghost-angel]

Reported.

You know, I avoid posting in most of your threads. Occasionally I find one with some interesting idea in it. This happened to be one of them and you spat on it. That's unfortunate.

[Derek Hiemforth]

GA, I think you misunderstood what Christopher meant when he said he "edited for accuracy." If you take a look at the time on that post, and then at the "last edited" time on his original post, I think Christopher meant that's he'd edited his post for accuracy... not that he'd edited your quote for accuracy. I know he only quoted part of what you said, but I believe that's because that's the part he agreed with, and was modifying his original post based on.

I think this was a misunderstanding, not an insult. Can we resolve this here and now?

[schir1964]

GA, I think you misunderstood what Christopher meant when he said he "edited for accuracy." If you take a look at the time on that post, and then at the "last edited" time on his original post, I think Christopher meant that's he'd edited his post for accuracy... not that he'd edited your quote for accuracy. I know he only quoted part of what you said, but I believe that's because that's the part he agreed with, and was modifying his original post based on.

I think this was a misunderstanding, not an insult. Can we resolve this here and now?
That is correct. Again, it looks like my inability to express myself clearly has caused another misunderstanding.

And I'll say this here and now, I've always found ghost-angel's posts to be informative and respect his opinion on things greatly, even if I do disagree with them from time to time.

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Thanks Derek for helping clear this up. It finally makes sense now.

I was wracking my brain to figure out how editing my post to fix an incorrect term based on his post was an insult.

The second component he listed doesn't have a bearing on my example since it is limiting a greater ability of Healing and thus would fall under the standard mechanic of Limitations and not a redefinition of the Healing mechanic.

- Christopher Mullins

[ghost-angel]

No. I don't see it.

"Duly noted and corrected for accuracy" is not an explanation of why he quoted part of my post and left off the Optional Rule statement I mentioned he missed. How am I supposed to guess his partial quote and that phrase WASN'T in reference to my post?

It's not a Limitation on Healing. It's a redefinition of Healing to create the Regeneration Mechanic as an Optional Rule. There is not "Limitation: works on Body Only" in the Rules listed. It's a Statement To Define The Optional Rule.

And his OP does not mention, or explain, why that aspect was removed.

How can I, with all that, assume he meant something other than a snarky post aimed at stating I was wrong without citing, referencing, or explaining himself in any clear or intelligible manner.

My position stands - I find it insulting. If it wasn't I suggest you work on expressing yourself more clearly.

[schir1964]

If it wasn't I suggest you work on expressing yourself more clearly.
Duly noted. It will always be a work in progress.

- Christopher Mullins

[ghost-angel]

So - care to explain why the Rule Redefinition isn't included?

If Regeneration is Redefined to only work on Body - that becomes a Base Definition of Regeneration (as a subset of Healing).

If I get the just of this post, would then the question be: Should an Advantage be allowed to change this immutable aspect of Regeneration or not?

[schir1964]

So - care to explain why the Rule Redefinition isn't included?
I already explained it in my posts above. You've chosen to reject that explanation or simply disagree with it. Either way, I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise.

If Regeneration is Redefined to only work on Body - that becomes a Base Definition of Regeneration (as a subset of Healing).

If I get the just of this post, would then the question be: Should an Advantage be allowed to change this immutable aspect of Regeneration or not?
You keep referring to Regeneration as if it is a separate Mechanic from Healing. Based on the listing in the book, it is simply a variant of Healing.

Thus, the question is about Base Definition of Healing and should an Advantage be allowed to change the immutable aspect of Healing to create a variant called Regeneration or should that variant be split out to become a completely different mechanic altogether?

This is in line with the other examples I gave and so forth. It is also why I wrote such a long text since it was a concept that isn't easily conveyed.

- Christopher Mullins

[ghost-angel]

I guess you've failed to explain the meaning of this post in any way that I find meaningful.
Regeneration is an Optional Rule defining an Alternate Mechanic.

C'est la vie.

have fun with whatever this post is actually about.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Given the tone and direction this thread has taken, I don't think it would be productive to continue it from here. I'm locking the thread. Christopher (or ghost-angel, for that matter), if you'd like to open a new thread discussing your original point, please feel free to do so, but please don't carry this confrontation over. Thanks.