Read on Twitter
I've been thinking a bit recently about mechanics in RPGs on a spectrum from integral to inconsequentially ignorable, and in particular how much a game signals how important a given mechanic is.
Before I get in too deep, I will say upfront that no judgement is attached either way about mechanics being important or ignorable. (e.g., Vincent Baker has a pretty good case for why it's good to have inessential mechanics in section 4 of this post: https://lumpley.games/2019/12/30/powered-by-the-apocalypse-part-1/)
In any case, the first question I've been considering is "If I wanted to remove this mechanic, how many non-trivial chances would I have to make?"
Changing a game's core resolution from 3d6 + # to 1d20 + # might change a lot of text, but might be as simple as Find + Replace. So, small change even if a lot of text changes. (OTOH, if "reroll one/two dice" abilities are common, maybe not such a small change.)
2nd question: How much does the game signal importance? How much text is spent on the mechanic relative to other mechanics? Is the mechanic referenced in a lot of other places? Does it have its own section on the character sheet?
That 3d6 might *appear* important.
That 3d6 might *appear* important.
When the signals match the actual importance, that's great! Folks who don't know the system in and out will still pick up on what matters.
When signals don't match importance, well, that's where you get arguments over whether Mechanic M matters to Game G.
When signals don't match importance, well, that's where you get arguments over whether Mechanic M matters to Game G.
Not that clear signaling avoids the issue entirely. Some folks may have always played with the two paragraphs of optional rules on the top of p. 450 and feel like a mechanic is well-supported, while others may have flipped from 449 to 451 and not noticed anything "missing."
The first has a perfectly reasonable understanding that the mechanic on p. 450 is a core part of the system, while the second can also reasonably say that the mechanic doesn't matter because nothing else ever references it.
My current "favorite" mechanic for this is the bonus/reroll currency (Inspiration/Action Points/Determination/whatever). I rarely see a game that simultaneously supports the mechanic and doesn't make it trivial to remove.
It is possible for some folks to be happy that their favorite game has the mechanic, while other folks are frustrated that it's so incidental that their first two GMs didn't even remember to include it.
In any case, next time you get upset about someone misrepresenting your favorite game, it might be worth asking yourself what the signals are in the text. Which signals did you pick up on? Which signals did they pick up on?
e.g., The D&D 5E has about this tweet thread's worth of optional partial success rules in the DMG of an ~1k page system. By the standards of a game with more central partial success systems (PbtA, Fate, PF 2, etc.), they look like a *suggestion* of a potential mechanic.
The text *signals* that D&D is a game without partial success. It can be simultaneously true that you had a great time with this mechanic, that someone coming from another system doesn't find it to be much of a mechanic at all, and that the average player will never see it.
This thread brought to you by yet another "D&D is/isn't a combat game" argument.
