What are "essential" TTRPG mechanisms?

[TwoSix]

I’d push back a bit there. There are many ways to distribute authority and transfer it that to me would look nothing like an rpg.

I’d also say distribution of authority and transferring it is essential to all table top games. In monopoly I have authority over the car and you the dog. In magic the gathering, I normally have authority over playing cards from my deck (unless some mechanic allows you to). Etc.

The distribution of authority and transferring it isn’t unique to RPGs. So I guess I agree it’s essential in the same way it’s essential to monopoly or magic the gathering, but it’s not particularly explanatory about RPGs due to its applicability outside RPGs, IMO.

Yea, but I’m assuming that our TTRPG will start off with idea of freeform roleplaying a narrative. To my mind, that crosses over from being an “essential mechanic” to being definitional.

But that’s ultimately just semantics.

 

[TwoSix]

You also have to have player characters, The World, and someone to arbitrate on the mechanics.

You don’t have to have any of that. The core of a TTRPG is “Let’s take turns telling a story.”

 

[FrogReaver]

You don’t have to have any of that. The core of a TTRPG is “Let’s take turns telling a story.”

I don’t agree there. That would be core to a story game. RPG is more nuanced than that overly broad description.

 

[Reynard]

I'm still a little fuzzy on the meaning of "mechanism" in the OP, but I will give it a shot:

The only essential mechanic is a form of task resolution. That can be random rolls with modifiers, someone with authority over the resolution, or some other system, but it is truly essential.

Now, if the question is what I myself personally demand be in a TTRPG for it to be for me: I need that resolution system to operate using a combination of user input, random results and adjudication. Missing any of those and it just isn't an RPG resolution mechanic to me.

 

[FrogReaver]

You also have to have player characters, The World, and someone to arbitrate on the mechanics.

I think players characters are essential and a world for them to exist in. Single player RPGs push back on the notion of needing someone to arbitrate on the mechanics I think. (Though I’ve not played one myself so could be wrong).

 

[pawsplay]

You don’t have to have any of that. The core of a TTRPG is “Let’s take turns telling a story.”

That's just one major element. You also have to player characters, and the story has to be told through a game system. "Let's take turns telling a story" isn't an RPG as such, it's just taking turns telling a story.

 

[overgeeked]

You also have to have player characters, The World, and someone to arbitrate on the mechanics.

It’s worth noting the distinction between rules and mechanics. Mechanics are a subset of rules. “Roll 1d20 + mods vs TN” is a mechanic. “This game has a referee and they’re in charge of interpreting the rules and mechanics” is a rule. “This is a fantasy game” is a rule. “Each player takes a turn” is a rule. Sports have lots of rules, but few mechanics.

 

[pawsplay]

I'm still a little fuzzy on the meaning of "mechanism" in the OP, but I will give it a shot:

The only essential mechanic is a form of task resolution. That can be random rolls with modifiers, someone with authority over the resolution, or some other system, but it is truly essential.

Now, if the question is what I myself personally demand be in a TTRPG for it to be for me: I need that resolution system to operate using a combination of user input, random results and adjudication. Missing any of those and it just isn't an RPG resolution mechanic to me.

You could do all that in a game about rabbits living in a meadow. You could simulate their behavior, give them experiences, and watch them live and die. But I don't think it's an RPG, in the formal sense we use the term here, unless someone plays a rabbit. That's the "role" part.

When Braunstein went from a strategy game to a proto-RPG, it was because players starting acting out their characters as-if they were those characters.

 

[pawsplay]

I think players characters are essential and a world for them to exist in. Single player RPGs push back on the notion of needing someone to arbitrate on the mechanics I think. (Though I’ve not played one myself so could be wrong).

Well, you do, and you are always fine with the judgments.

 

[Reynard]

You could do all that in a game about rabbits living in a meadow. You could simulate their behavior, give them experiences, and watch them live and die. But I don't think it's an RPG, in the formal sense we use the term here, unless someone plays a rabbit. That's the "role" part.

When Braunstein went from a strategy game to a proto-RPG, it was because players starting acting out their characters as-if they were those characters.

That's not a mechanic.