Philosophical: Definition Of A Mechanic

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Philosophical: Definition Of A Mechanic

 

Desolid is SFX jammed down your throat.

Jammed down my throat? It's the SFX that I'm after! Reason from effects, remember? You start with the concept of "I want a sci-fi character with a interdimensional-semiphasing device," or "I want a mist-form spell for my wizard," or "I want a ghost to haunt the players in this horror-game," or "I want a superhero with powers like the Sandman." Only then do you look for the mechanic in the rules.

 

Nothing is being jammed down anyone's throat. You want to be desolid? here's the power and how it works. Not that it's necessarily the best way of doing it. It could certainly be improved upon.

 

What is the effect of being immaterial? Interposing objects don't hamper your movement and attacks, primarily physical, don't inflict damage. What if you could take Indirect on your movement and just define your "not taking damage" as the SFX of a hefty PD or DCV?

That's another possible mechanic for the concept.

 

But anyway, I would say a mechanic is a concept of the game system that can only be amended not subverted or deleted. G-A's example is perfect.

It goes back to the ambiguity of the original question. Again, I have no idea if we're really addressing the issue Chris intended to raise. I'm not even sure he can define what he was trying to get at.

[casualplayer]

Re: Philosophical: Definition Of A Mechanic

 

It goes back to the ambiguity of the original question. Again' date=' I have no idea if we're really addressing the issue Chris intended to raise. I'm not even sure he can define what he was trying to get at.[/quote']

 

Oh good, I thought it might just be me.

 

I don't care for SFX hardcoded into the power. It doesn't make for a very versatile tool in my toolbox.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Philosophical: Definition Of A Mechanic

 

Jammed down my throat? It's the SFX that I'm after! Reason from effects, remember? You start with the concept of "I want a sci-fi character with a interdimensional-semiphasing device," or "I want a mist-form spell for my wizard," or "I want a ghost to haunt the players in this horror-game," or "I want a superhero with powers like the Sandman." Only then do you look for the mechanic in the rules.

 

Nothing is being jammed down anyone's throat. You want to be desolid? here's the power and how it works. Not that it's necessarily the best way of doing it. It could certainly be improved upon.

 

I think that this is at the core of Chris' question. How far can a power be stretched before it is not performing the role that it should be.

 

When a player says they want an interdimensional-semiphasing device, the response should not be - so you want to be desolid? It should be more like - so what does that accomplish for you?

 

Then you find out whether they can walk through walls etc. If they want a power that allows them to walk through walls then you might draw desolid out of the box. If they want to be able to ignore certain types of attack (I do not think that this would be a part of the 'indexing sentence' of the power) then you might have to look at other powers, depending on the way that this worked.

 

If a player wants to be able to interact with the physical world and yet ignore physical objects (mist form) should we modify desolid or design a new mechanic designed and costed for this purpose. Chris' question is (as I understand it) where this line should be drawn.

 

 

Doc

[schir1964]

Re: Philosophical: Definition Of A Mechanic

 

First of all, I'd like to thank everyone that has participated. It has been very informative to see the viewpoints on this.

 

Second, I think the most have gotten the gist of what I was asking and based on the posts by everyone involved, just about everyone has contributed to answering the question I posed.

 

Third, Doc has summed up very nicely what I was having trouble stating in a concise manner.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Philosophical: Definition Of A Mechanic

 

I don't care for SFX hardcoded into the power. It doesn't make for a very versatile tool in my toolbox.

I don't really see it as the SFX hardcoded into the power, mor elike the other way around. The system needs to be complete enough to cover all possible power concepts, such as becoming insubstancial in various ways. And it ought to have the flexibility to allow for the precise implimentation of those concepts, such as the differences between turning into smoke/mist or becoming "metaphysically" desolid like a ghost.

 

I'd have no problem if a character wanted to buy Damage Reduction and Some form of Tunneling or other powers and define the SFX as "turning into a ghost-like form". But it isn't quite the same mechanically as the Desolid power, and might not be the right approach to take for all conceptions of (small-d) desolid.

 

In general, it is a very *good* thing to have multiple ways of implimenting a concept. We already have that in many areas.

[Paragon]

Re: Philosophical: Definition Of A Mechanic

 

Sorry for the bit of necro here, but Chris had asked me to give this question a look, and I've been very busy the last few weeks, enough I wasn't looking at this board at all (and I think at this point I'll bail out of the 6e discussion since I've sat out enough of it).

 

My own feeling is that no component of a power mechanic is sacred. Choosing the base effect you're looking for from available options based on what seems closest to it, and mutate the rest at need.

 

Otherwise you're forced into mechanics that don't seem appropriate to you just because of what a power is called.

 

Two classic examples:

 

1. You want a power that does nothing but knock people away from you. There are two obvious ways to do it: a Limited TK and a limited EB. A purist approach would argue for the TK because TK is about moving things, whereas knockback is a side effect of an EB. But TK is largely all or nothing; if your concept is that the effect that knocks things away is variable in its reliability or has other properties where the blast seems more appropriate, I say go with the Blast.

 

2. You want a concealment power that affects the target's perception roll, but doesn't make you automatically unseen. Two obvious ways are to Limit either Invisibility or Images. The purist will say Invisibility, because its property is to conceal you; but if you want to be able to manipulate the degree to which you're hard to see, there's no obvious metric with Invisiblity, while Images has one built in, so it might be the better choice.

 

That said, Hero has never been entirely non-conflicted on what is appropriate for base effects anyway; some powers have always carried a lot more baggage than others (partly because there are two kinds of powers in Hero; real base core powers, and a handful of "powers of convenience" that represent effects seen often enough in comics that it was seen as tedious to have to construct them every time (and prone to getting into potentially undesireable inconsistencies)). That's one reason some purists would like the "Four Basic Elements" approach.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Philosophical: Definition Of A Mechanic

 

...............That's one reason some purists would like the "Four Basic Elements" approach.

 

...so that would be the strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism and gravity.

 

6th is going to be some book.

 

 

 

 

 

 

What?