Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm just curious if, in the framework of a rules light RPG, you prefer a single core mechanic used unchanged throughout the whole RPG regardless of the situation or is it ok to have 2-3 core mechanics with each being used for a broad category. For example, in a d6 dice pool mechanic game, would you prefer the same "count up successes in all tests and compare" mechanic whether opposed or unopposed (vs a static target number based on difficulty) or to have slightly to moderately different mechanics for broad categories of rolls (like combat vs social or opposed vs unopposed)? Thanks in advance as I'm toying around with various mechanics but I don't know if having related but different mechanics in an otherwise relatively rules light game is a turnoff to the types of players attracted to those types of games.

Not just rules Lite, but all games should strive for One Mechanic to rule them all. A variety of mini-games and sub-systems is not optimal in my mind, but some people LOVE it.

I have some more thoughts on this here IF you are inclined to read about it:
https://bloodandspectacles.blogspot.com/2023/03/wargame-design-grand-unifying-mechanic.html

 Easy E wrote:
Not just rules Lite, but all games should strive for One Mechanic to rule them all. A variety of mini-games and sub-systems is not optimal in my mind, but some people LOVE it.

I have some more thoughts on this here IF you are inclined to read about it:
https://bloodandspectacles.blogspot.com/2023/03/wargame-design-grand-unifying-mechanic.html

I'll definitely read it tonight as I'm obviously interested in the topic; thanks for the link! Just to be clear, I'm not referring to fully different/incompatible mechanics like the 80's style D&D2e/Palladium mishmash of d20/percentile dice. I'm more referring to the same core mechanic (like a 6 on a d6 is a success) but having for example opposed rolls be dice pool vs dice pool whereas unopposed rolls being modifiers to your own dice pool. Would it be better to always have modifiers or always have dice pool vs dice pool instead of a mix of the two depending on the broad category of the roll. I don't know if that makes a difference for you but figured I'd clarify as I was intentionally vague in the OP so as not to influence the poll results unduly.

edit: Read through the article and agree with large parts of it. I do see the contradiction in proposing a second related mechanic in a specifically rules light game but I see it not breaking your own second rule/reason for the Grand Theory in that it's not hard due to the core lightness of the rules. Regardless, I'm obviously biased and my point here was to see what others think.