Design Intent in Game Mechanics - Objective Based Design

 One of the Interesting things about Matt Easton Analysis is converting the Strengths (and Weaknesses) of Spears into Game mechanics. 

Did you encounter a Game System that was Hard to understand - because it didn't seem to have a Goal or It Failed to State a goal? (Goals are Criteria to test if the Actions OR Conditions still met the intent - when actions or conditions failed the criteria - we select other courses of action). 

Typically when designing Game mechanics we start with reasonable assumptions:  

   2 Parties of Equal level and then to begin Detailing the Factors and Deciding "Nah that's too complicated, and lets handwave that" or "We want this Advantage/Disadvantage so the players have this option". 

What for me is strange is when there is no System in designing Mechanics. In writing Mneme Variant Combat rules (MVC) for Cepheus I had a Workflow, Impact Analysis of current Cepheus Engine Combat, and outcomes I wanted. This comes from the experience of having Tried one of the most detailed and Trying to be realistic Combat Systems - GURPS and learning from its Problems when just because its Realistic it proceeded to apply the Modifiers - failing to take into account Scope and Option and Power Creep - as well as the greater Learning Curve (that comes with Option Creep). 

In Mneme Variant Combat rules - the goal is to Simplify with:  

1. Superiority who had the best Conditions (Numbers of Forces, Terrain, Position). 
2. Advantage and Disadvantages were based on the Options the Player Took and of course Their Skill and Abilities as the Base.  

Players feel Rewarded if they were Strategic -- Getting Superiority in Position, Numbers, or Timing OR they Get rewarded with Adv if they take certain options ON top of their Skills and Equipment.

The MVC tries to emphasize: "Breathe, now simplify who has Superiority and by how much, and does the PC have Adv/Dis?* Then proceed to roll" Let your Mental Resources focus on making this ROUND engaging to the Players - Dont let the dice and rules get in the way! You only have to roll one resolution (you still roll its damage and consequences). You should have more ability to tell if your storytelling is working or if you need to change your approach. 

*who has the advantage. If PC, PC rolls with advantage. if the Opposing forces have an advantage the PC rolls at a disadvantage. 

Mnemosyne  the Muse of MEMORY is the main theme of our Product Line. The tools, the arrangement, the entire Strategy is to make sure: you can run games because you have a smaller mental load with the less valuable things (the rules and mechanics) - to be able to use more of your mental resources to engage the players. 

The book waxes into a lot of lessons in tactics in the APPENDIX from 9 years of airsoft, fps with my same airsoft team, and of course my background in kali and limited tournament experience; I still do a tactical and strategic analysis of our MechWarrior Online games which we have a channel of Tier 5 MWO player ; the critical thinking skills should work in Airsoft, HEMA battles, FPS shooters which require 20-40ping and 0.2 second reaction time, Nebulous Fleet Command or Children of the Dead Earth, OR marshaling resources for Projects or Operations - like a knife being so versatile it can be used for anything or create suitable tools to do anything. 

Academy of Historical Fencing

  

Biomechanics Qualities

1. Reach 
2. Speed of Pivot vs having more arm movement.  
3. its Length Leverage
4. Ability to be used as an Effective Ranged Weapon, allowing for the secondary weapon and shield to be used offensively (An Opportunity attack)

face Value setting of session zero from 1 to real world

This applies to NPcs and PCs - and real life. In a game we make likeable or untrustworthy NPcs say agreeable or disagreeable things to PCs. 

In session zero we have to ask "how much face value so you want in a measure of 1 to 5. 1 being there is no other context and it's in plain words with no thinking on the players part or 5 real life ambiguity - we have to take context into account, 3 being the GM allowing some peeking through the veil"

===

When saying agreeable things to people who dislikes you and uses association bias to judge the merits of your output (words and actions) by how they like you (which also means that they judge you primarily by their usefulness to them) - lying vs deflection (Google deflection the verbal technique).

I find lying better than deflection becuase deflection - delays a confrontation while lying accelerates a confrontation (this is a conflict management strategy).

"I will lie to you to say agreeable things because I cannot say disagreeable things to you " triggers a Why? A lot of why's!

Deflection is you sparing them - technically you didn't lie. You changed focus and redirected attention.

Whats even more crucial is that this technique can be put in the mirror - who disagrees with me and lies about it. I like how this makes me more paranoid and more skilled in looking at context - he's lying - he's not really agreeing with me. And I learn tells.

In fact it makes me less surprised, it makes a more mature voice in my head say "lolz why did you really believe they agreed with you without any action to demonstrate a commitment"

Of course crucial is non-zero sum thinking (anyone who disagrees with me is an enemy is zero sum thinking, non zero sum is people can disagree with me for reasons that has nothing to do with me) 

Sorry I have to explain commitment - this is in quality management this is proof of words attempting to meet actions - the most interesting is that in Game theory this is signaling of a coordination game - the other party have made their stakes match yours and thus as much proof as one can currently ask.

https://www.mindbodygreen.com/articles/deflection#:~:text=Deflection%20is%20a%20defense%20mechanism,young%20children%20to%20grown%20adults.