{"id":15637,"date":"2015-06-16T00:48:39","date_gmt":"2015-06-15T14:48:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.campaignmastery.com\/blog\/?p=15637"},"modified":"2015-06-16T00:48:39","modified_gmt":"2015-06-15T14:48:39","slug":"strange-mechanics","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.campaignmastery.com\/blog\/strange-mechanics\/","title":{"rendered":"Plunging Into Game Physics Pt 2: Strange Mechanics"},"content":{"rendered":"
This entry is part 2 of 4 in the series Plunging into Game Physics<\/a><\/div><\/div><\/div>
\"black-hole-245746-m\"

“Black Hole” by Laurence Diver.<\/p><\/div>\n

\nAs you can see from the title, this is part 2 of a series looking at the underlying principles and applications of Game Physics. The first part looked at exactly what the term meant, and found that it needed quite a lot of definition because it could be used to mean any of several different things. It could be a selective rationale for the differences between game “world” and the objective reality of the real world; it could describe the Essential Pseudoscience that rationalizes the fantastic; It could be “Ubermechanics” that add options to characters, and\/or remove options, and\/or simply add essential flavor. A “Game Physics” is potentially all those things at once, and more.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The Boundaries Of Game Mechanics<\/h3>\n

The abstract reduction of reality that is the game mechanics can only imperfectly reflect the underlying “game reality” described by the Game Physics. Push the game mechanics too far. and they break down. This is not a breakdown of the game physics, merely of the simplified description embodied by the mechanics, and that means that the game physics can and should be designed for use as a guideline when the game mechanics can’t cope.<\/p>\n

The situation is not dissimilar to the relationship between modern physics and what is commonly referred to as “Classical” or “Newtonian” Physics. The latter is a basic description of the properties of movement embodied in Newton’s Three Laws of Motion; but these do not fully describe motion of very small objects like particles or motions at close to the speed of light in a vacuum. For those, Quantum Mechanics and Relativity are required.<\/p>\n

The simplest Game Physics possible does little more than identify boundary conditions – “no characters are permitted Strength higher than 25” for example – beyond which the results from the game mechanics are unreliable. That’s usually not enough, but it sets a minimum standard that should be part of every campaign.<\/p>\n

The Creation Of House Rules<\/h3>\n

So, let’s talk about what else there might be, if you look beyond that absolute minimum, and how exactly you should go about translating an abstract game physics into one or more House Rules.<\/p>\n

There are – superficially – lots of ways to do this, but when you look into them closely, they all embody the same basic process; some simply hide that process better than others. In theory, the process is actually very simple: you take an abstract principle, translate that into a Metagame Principle, and then convert that Principle into Game Mechanics, i.e. rules.<\/p>\n

Is it that simple in reality? Sometimes, yes, and sometimes no. It depends on many factors, from the change that you want to make through to the game system to which you want to apply it, and how interconnected and wide-ranging the affected mechanics are. Let’s consider each step in the process independently and try to get to some specific advice and techniques.<\/p>\n

Concept to Principle<\/h5>\n

So let’s say that you’ve got this wonderful idea for how the world works. It could be anything – perhaps magical effects are the result of four interacting forces being mixed in various ways, something that parallels the four classical elements of earth, air, fire, and water – or even the four elements of the ancient Chinese world, earth, air, metal, and wood, just to be different. Or perhaps there’s a metal that experiences increased inertia when moving at relatively slow speed – say the speed of the typical two-handed swing – so that smaller weapons can do more harm. Or perhaps – as was the case in the first part of my series on alternative healing in D&D\/Pathfinder (All Wounds Are Not Alike \u2013 Part 1<\/a>), you think that perhaps hit points should be a measurement of the gap between full health and incapacitation instead of health to imminent death.<\/p>\n

All of these are Concepts. The first step in translating a concept into game mechanics is to convert it into a set of principles. These principles can be thought of as translating the general notion into a series of specific effects that you want and need the rules that you will create to encapsulate. Another perspective is to consider them a work order for specific House Rules.<\/p>\n

So, how do you go from idea to plan of execution (which is still a third way to think of the process)?<\/p>\n

In essence, this involves stating and restating the concept and its ramifications until you find at least<\/em> one that can be related to some measurable or logical value present within the game system, or that can be created from the content already present.<\/p>\n

It was no coincidence that I mentioned “All Wounds Are Not Alike Part 1” a little earlier, because that provides a perfect example of the process. The paragraph (in the section entitled “The Healthy and the Helpless”, near the start) that starts “Another possible answer” states the concept. Ignoring the side-note that follows this paragraph, the next two (starting “We’ve” and “We have”, respectively) analyze the concept and spell out the initial ramifications, enabling the principle to be restated in terms that might be amenable to translation into game mechanics (in the paragraph that starts “Under this paradigm”).<\/p>\n

Rather than make people read that article in it’s entirety, here are the paragraphs in question:<\/p>\n

\nAnother possible answer which I have seen in house rules from time to time is that hit points are a numeric index of the gap between healthy and helpless. This relates the damage that is inflicted upon a character to the impact that this damage has on his abilities, and his capacity to overcome that impact.<\/p>\n

We\u2019ve all experienced injuries in our time \u2013 abrasions, falls, nicks. Some have had more serious injuries like broken bones or surgical wounds. And a few unfortunates have even more serious injuries in their pasts. So we can all relate to the principle that being injured slows our movements, impairs our physical capacities for action, and saps our will to act. These are responses to the pain of the injury, which is the body\u2019s reaction to that injury; if we heed these warning signals, we heal, or at least have the chance to do so, and if we don\u2019t then healing is slowed, may not progress properly (bones fusing out of alignment and so on), or may not occur at all (cuts reopening, etc).<\/p>\n

We have all also seen people, especially in desperate circumstances, ignore wounds that might have incapacitated them at other times, in order to meet the needs of survival (be those their own or those of someone else).<\/p>\n

Under this paradigm, the increase in hit points a character receives as a result of a level increase can be described as an increase in the capacity to remain functional despite injuries that may have been received, and the condition of zero hit points remaining \u2013 helplessness \u2013 is tantamount to death, should any enemy remain in better condition.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Principle to Rule<\/h5>\n

The rest of the first half of the article, all the way down to the section entitled “Consequences: translating impairment zones into game mechanics consequences”, consists of proposing and analyzing three different ways by which that restated concept can be translated into actual numbers that can be used to implement new rules. The “Consequences” section, and the “Internal Injuries section that follows it, list the ramifications of the conceptual rules, completing the “work order”. That’s rather too lengthy to quote here – it would take us too far off-track – so suffice it to say that using the index derived from “% of hit points lost”, a modifier is discussed (leaving open the question of exactly what the numeric value of that modifier should be) and a long list of game mechanics values derived that should be subject to that modifier:<\/p>\n

\n