What is Mechanization?

Mechanization is the art of defining the systematic rules that will be used to govern the characters actions as they conflict with the game world. Mechanization resolves conflict. If it is not resolving conflict, it isn't a mechanic, it is a concept.

Let us take, for example, a character that was created a character with a high appearance score. They are good looking. That will certainly effect how they are perceived by the world – how NPCs react. But what is the difference between that and the player that says their character is good looking? The character with the appearance statistic can compare to see who is better looking. This is a resolution of a conflict – a challenge to get a girl's attention, deciding whether the bandits are hostile or nice, the ability to talk the handsome man out of the secret passwords. Saying that something has "no game effect" is saying that it really isn't part of the mechanics, but of the concept.

Good solid Number Crunchers are already well aware of this fact. They know precisely how much game effect each point needs to net them. They buy the traits that are the most likely to create the largest game effect (or one that is unstoppable, which is a different way of saying largest.)

It is important to know that "having the GM decide" without the use of rules for aid, is not mechanization. (Although it may very well be good GMing!) In fact, such statements are clear indicators of where the mechanics are failing to mesh with concept.

Character Creation based on Mechanics

"Here's 3d6. Roll up a character." In olden days, it was the only way to make a character. But we live in a more enlightened role-playing age where we scoff at "random" character generation. But it isn't a wrong way to make a character – it is just putting the focus on the mechanics rather then concept, inspiration or drama.

Even more common then the "roll and see what we get" method of mechanics based character creation is the player that uses the mechanics to create their inspiration. They will flip through the rules and find a mechanic that they think would be cool to implement and then base a character upon that mechanic. This style seems to have a huge advantage in that mechanics, inspiration and concept all seem to fall directly into line with each other. But that is often a trap: the inspiration and concept can still suffer the problem of not meeting the design of the campaign. The player finds something cool to run, but fails to notice that this inspiration is outside the scope of the campaign leading to certain friction later. "I know your character can seduce a eunuch, but we are running World's Largest Dungeon. Do you really want to defeat that Umber Hulk by using seduction?"

Still, there is no reason that a great character cannot arise from the skeletal structure of mechanics. Some people even find it easier – they use skills and numbers to create their drama, they explain the numbers with a concept. It is like the awakening of a Role-Player, bursting from the skin of a Number Cruncher to spread their beautifully crafted role-playing wings and fly. Suddenly, they see something more then numbers sitting on a page – they see a person, living and breathing, growing and interacting with the world.

Even if they are a neutral evil ninja assassin drow ...

Changing Mechanics in Play

All characters mechanics change in play. It is at the core of most character development systems. Most players will get upset if they don't see that progression of their numbers. This is especially true of characters built based on mechanics. The number cruncher usually sees the "future" of their character in the abilities that they will later gain. "I can't wait till fifth level, then I will be able to fly and call my self 'Sorceror of the Wind and Fire!'"

I hope by know that all of my dear readers see the problem with that statement. It is not about mechanics – it is about inspiration. The player is basing his character inspiration and concept on mechanics that the character does not yet have. The GM had best be aware of this inspiration or the campaign could turn in a different direction, the inspiration failing and causing dissatisfaction in the player. Maybe the GM decided not to allow fly spells. Or it may be as simple as the GM not having a place for a a flying Sorceror in his plot line – maybe peasants will shun such a character, running in fear of the "Sorceror." The GM will ask the player what they expected to happen, even though the GM probably has a pretty good idea of what they player expected. It was just not part of the GM's campaign vision.

Getting all this role-playing stuff right sure can be hard work.

One other common method of changing mechanics in play are the systems that allow the player to rebuild their character after a session or two. This is designed so that characters that find out that their mechanization did not correctly portray their concept or inspiration can give it another go after they better understand the mechanics and have seen them in play. This is solidly putting mechanics lower on the scale of focus then the concept and inspiration, and is often allowed by GMs in minor ways even if the system makes no mention of it.

What if Mechanization is Missing?

How can you build a character without assigning any rules to that character? You could be in a freeform environment where there are no rules, only decisions made based on concepts and drama. Another fun one is for the GM to do all of the mechanics himself and not tell the players what their statistics really are. This isn't truly skipping mechanics – it is just removing them from the hands of the players.

How about coming up with one set of rules that apply to all characters, regardless of their concepts? The players make characters potentially not even knowing these rules, or without the rules mattering. Or the GM doesn't even tell the players what those rules are and then the game acts like a freeform except the GM has rules.

Missing mechanics can be very hard on players. They will need a different (non-analytical) set of skills to predict what will happen to their characters, and may be in a position where consistency and repeatability are not operating. Being able to predict the outcome of conflict is an important step for operating within a world. Not having a system requires that the GM and the other players are skilled (and trusted enough) for the players to be able to feel some consistency and trust the environment. None of us want to live in a world where we cannot have a large measure of predictability and consistency, and our characters are no different. This makes mechanics the hardest part of character creation to omit.

Conclusion

Mechanics are a funny thing. One could say mechanics are role-playing games. People keep creating new types of mechanics, calling them the "best ever" while complaining about the problems of other mechanics. They publish new books, with even newer mechanics. Or maybe just detailing more parts of the world with mechanics. Every where we turn there are mechanics waiting for us. I find this especially funny when a series of complicated mechanics are designed to allow for better conceptualization.

There is just a lack of satisfaction for a system's ability to represent the world we want to see. Everyone has different inspirations, so they want different systems, whether they be the player or the GM. So we build a system to contain all visions, or try and build a system for each of the visions, till there is a glut of products separated by marketing as much as quality.

This presents the largest challenge to the process of character creation. You are either the Number Cruncher that needs to make sure that the mechanics create the greatest effect possible, or you are the Role-Player that is hoping the mechanics won't get in the way of the other aspects of your character. You love it or you hate it, but it is always there waiting for you as you pull out a character sheet.