« Senior Social Interaction Designer | Home | Renown & the Modular Game Board »
Mechanics are to Grammar as Dynamics are to…
By Corvus | December 8, 2008
There are a lot of great comments on my post, Multi-Purposing Game Mechanics. I’ve peppered this post with quotes pulled from the discussion–quotes that I either had a strong reaction to, or have been mulling over–but you ought to read the full thread if you haven’t already.
Game mechanics are the means by which a story is converted into a game.
–Undercrypt
One of the things that became immediately clear from the discussion is that there are several slightly different definitions of mechanics at play. I tend to use the MDA (Mechanics/Dynamics/Aesthetic) framework (PDF link) as the basis for my definition, as I find it syncs up nicely with my participatory storytelling framework. But, since we’re talking about narrative here, I thought using traditional narrative terms might be more useful.
Game mechanics are akin to rules of grammar, punctuation, and spelling. Mechanics are discrete rules, unattached to each other, that define the core behaviors of the game. “Use a question mark to indicate an interrogative sentence,” is a punctuation rule of the English language that is completely unattached to the use of commas, tense, and sentence structure. “If no other keys are pressed, tapping SPACEBAR causes the avatar to translate +3 units, and then -3 units, along the Z axis,” is a game mechanic completely unattached to the collection of weapons, the harmful effects of walking in lava, or what happens when you fire a rocket launcher at the ground while jumping.
Game mechanics are to interactivity, as plot is to narrative: they create linearity.
–Michael Samyn
As such, I find myself in the regretful position of disagreeing with Michael Samyn, who suggests that mechanics are somehow responsible, like the plot of a novel, for linearity. It is quite the opposite–game mechanics, in and of themselves, are not inherently linear. They are a collection of rules defined by the designer. Many designers, like many novelists, base their grammar rules on the grammar rules used by more popular examples of their media. This means that collectively, as an industry, we’re slowly defining a common grammar of game design. There are, of course, exceptions to this, and, unlike the hyper-formalization of language, each game tends to rebuild its grammar rules from the ground up.
But while I hesitate to firmly attach game mechanics to the linearity of narrative, I also hesitate to assign them the role of physics theorems. Once the game has shipped, mechanics are certainly unalterable–barring a significant patch. But during the development stage–mechanics are not an unalterable reality that the designer must explore in order to deduce what’s really going on.
Almost all game mechanics are neither punitive or helpful. That would be like saying the theory of relativity is punitive, or helpful.
–Ron Newcomb
Mechanics are something that are created, tweaked, modified, and fine tuned, until exactly the intended experience is created for the audience. In other words, the jump mechanic can be endlessly tweaked during a game’s design. Typically this tweaking occurs because of its impact on the game dynamics. During play-testing it may be revealed that using the jump mechanic makes it possible to reach areas that weren’t intended to be accessible. Or that the jump mechanic makes it almost impossible to reach a ledge that holds an important key. I feel it’s important to recognize that, while a mechanic may not be forgiving or punitive in and of itself, the jump mechanic can be altered in any number of ways to change the audience experience of the game–with either a forgiving result, or a punitive result.
However discreet a grammar rule, or a game mechanic, might be–they are somewhat useless if they do not exist within a larger system. It wouldn’t be terribly helpful to study interrogative sentences without the larger context of declarative and exclamatory sentences. Similarly, the jump mechanic is pretty meaningless without the context of player movement and environmental interactivity. And this is where we move on to the next component of our model.
What binds gameplay mechanics to a player’s experience is more often than not the feedback on the gameplay mechanics and it is that feedback that can be punitive or forgiving or practically nonexistant.
–Max Battcher
While you can certainly have language without grammar rules, punctuation rules, and spelling rules–they all work together to facilitate clear communication. Game mechanics work together to create a game’s dynamics, which in turn produce a certain aesthetic. Max is quite right to suggest that it is here that the concept of punitive vs. forgiving design really comes into play. The jump mechanic and the falling-damage mechanic are not inherently connected, but if the player takes damage every time they jump, you could quite successfully argue that this creates a punitive dynamic. To push that to a ridiculous extreme–an even more punitive dynamic would result from attaching the explode mechanic to the jump mechanic, immediately and automatically killing the player with every jump.
The danger of divorcing player actions from challenge / rewards / consequences / advancement is that it can make the player choices meaningless.
–Alan Au
By tweaking mechanics to produce the desired dynamics, the designer is communicating something to the audience. What they ultimately manage to communicate is the game’s aesthetic. If the game primarily fun or stressful? Does it tend to encourage social or solo play? It is mainly a mental exercise or an emotional experience? Does it requite mental acuity or manual dexterity? Regardless, it is important to recognize that not all game mechanics and dynamics are connected to challenging the player. Enormous portions of a game’s design are in place simply to inform the player’s emotional and intellectual responses to the game.
Rod Humble’s The Marriage is an excellent example of a game that specifically utilizes game mechanics to produce an entirely non-challenging dynamic. And not only are there consequences, advancement, and a complete lack of challenge–The Marriage leaves the idea of reward entirely to the player’s fabula. Every mechanic in The Marriage is a metaphoric representation of narrative intent, not of traditional gameplay structured around the challenge/reward model. However, interacting with Marriage–this bounded space in which we explore possibility [1]–can still be described as play and therefore, I argue, The Marriage qualifies as a game–not merely a toy, not just art, but a game.
You can make a game that doesn’t challenge the player directly, but at some point she’s going to challenge herself anyways, making up her own rules and goals as she goes.
–Kimari
In the comments of the previous post, Cori linked us to a game, Seiklus. While Seiklus provides a less abstract set of metaphors than The Marriage, both games have several things in common. There appears to be no death mechanic in Seiklus, but an ending is implied by the display of a percentage in the game’s menu (presumably a completion percentage). Secondly, there are no overtly enforced gameplay goals. By exploring the environment, the audience learns to navigate and how they can effect certain items on the screen. Finally, both games leave it to their audience to provide goals, and rewards, while giving subtle indication of progress.
I think game mechanics are the method through which we shape the player’s experience within the game.
–th15
Ultimately, the only real “danger” in designing a game is to ignore the impact of your mechanics and dynamics on play. Even then, the only danger is in creating something inaccessible to all or part of your intended audience. And that danger doesn’t even guarantee reduced sales, as plenty of people will pick up an affordable game simply to see if they agree with its loudest detractors. Ultimately, a game, like a story, is a communication between designer/storyteller and audience. A successful communication establishes the applicable rules of of the game’s grammar
There is plenty of room within the industry for games that challenge and games that don’t. Play is play, whether the challenges are intended by the designer, created by the player, or entirely absent. Our only mistake is to define video games too narrowly and thereby ignore, exclude, or actively belittle the games that do not coincide with our own goals.
I guess a narrative that assists the audience in reaching the conclusion with no challenge would be… a movie?
–Gravey
In fact, this diversity is precisely what makes the video game industry such an exciting place to be. Our chosen medium is interactive in a way that traditional media is not. The Star Wars storyverse has changed and expanded over the years as the audience inspired by the original movies have gone on to write for Star Wars television shows, RPGs, novels, comics, and video games. Lost changes its scripts based upon internet conjecture following the airing of a new episode. Video games allow us to create dynamic storyworlds that respond immediately to player feedback. While this interactivity is the strength of the medium, it is the immense variety of expressions of this interactivity that is the strength of the industry.
[1] I define play as the self-guided exploration of possibility within a bounded space. [return]
Tagged:game dynamics, game mechanics, mda framework, storytelling. | 20 Comments »
December 8th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Plot doesn’t necessarily create linearity in a narrative. There are non-linear plots in novels and even novels that are constructed physically so the reader isn’t forced to start reading at the beginning.
I also don’t think that game mechanics and grammar are a good way to compare video games and writing. If anything, grammar is similar to a keyboard and mouse, or a controller, it’s a tool that allows a reader or player to interact with a game or novel with ease. A writer doesn’t sit and think about how he can create unique grammar rules to distinguish his writing.
I don’t know if there is an easy analogy between game mechanics and writing. The way a reader’s past experience interacts with the text may be a way, but that changes over time, while a game’s mechanics would stay the same. Maybe just the structure of the novel itself that affects the way a reader understands it.
Aren’t game mechanics something unique to games? The physical interaction between a player and the game?
December 8th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Or grammar could be compared to a game’s code. Something that should be invisible to the reader or player, unless a mistake appears, causing a crash in a game or drawing the reader out of the novel.
December 8th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
I tend to agree with Michael that, in general, plots are linear constructs. Experientially, this is certainly true.
Tell that to William S, Burroughs! He intentionally subverted many writing rules to extraordinary effect.
But absolutely all writers make decisions about grammar, punctuation, and even spelling. It’s why authors don’t all write exactly the same. Some of them may unconsciously make those decisions, or opt to strictly follow the norms, but I’d argue those aren’t the good writers. The good writers embrace the rules of language and make them their own.
Game mechanics, yes. But mechanics in general, no. There are mechanics of writing, of film making, of stage productions. There are commonalities in the way things are done and variances based upon decisions made by designers throughout the process.
I’m not saying game mechanics==grammar rules, but I think it’s an apt and meaningful analogy. Quite possibly we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one. -.0
December 8th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Seriously, Travis? What is a game mechanic if not code?
And you honestly don’t think game mechanics, at the level of discussion we’re having here, are just as invisible to most players as the mechanics of writing?
December 8th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Maybe I don’t understand what you intended by "game mechanics."
I think there’s a distinction between a game mechanic and the code that creates it, just as I think there’s a difference between a grammar rule and the effect a sentence has on a reader.
I think I’m thinking of a game mechanic as something that influences how the player experiences the game, not a nuts and bolts "tweaking." I assume when I jump in a game I’ll be able to reach the ledge that leads to my next goal, but what interests me is how the "jump" mechanic adds to my experience of the game. Are you talking about whether a game mechanic is broken or works as it’s intended?
For me, a better analogy would be diction. The choice of words in a novel influences the way a reader understands or experiences it more than grammar, which is usually a nuts and bolts assumption or contract between author and audience.
For an example of a experientially non-linear plot, check out Danielewski’s Only Revolutions. Though, of course, like Burroughs, it is experimental. Grammar can be manipulated to great effect, but it’s intended to be a set of rules that aids understanding across all genres of writing. Game mechanics, like diction, change across genres to provide a different experience.
I think we may be thinking down different paths though. I didn’t want to disagree with you, just to provide another viewpoint. If I could edit my first post, I would say, "I don’t think game mechanics and grammar are the way I would compare video games and writing." I didn’t mean to be hostile!
December 8th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Have you read the MDA framework? It’s possibly necessary (and certainly useful) to better see what I’m driving at.
Diction, perspective, voice, tense–all these I would compare to dynamics, not mechanics. Jumping to reach a ledge is reflective of a dynamic. The jump (and the math that makes the jump happen) are the solitary mechanic.
As far as mechanics equaling code–there’s the mechanic as described on paper, but the actual mechanic reflected within the game is code, pure and simple. Raw, primal, mechanics are nothing more than code without animation, music, or text to help the player understand it.
December 9th, 2008 at 5:47 am
The MDA framework is helpful, but it doesn’t make me feel any better about what you’re saying. After reading it, the idea that diction, perspective, voice, etc. are equivalent to dynamics and grammar is mechanics doesn’t sit well with me. The dynamics in a piece of writing are something that rise from all of the elements of writing, so if grammar is a mechanic then perspective is as well.
Since reading is a physically passive activity, the dynamic occurs between the mind and the text instead of the controller and the mechanics, so a writer is thinking of how the mechanics of diction, perspective, voice, tense will create a dynamic for the reader. After all, those literary terms are specifically “programmed” by a writer, and dynamics as far as I understand are player actions allowed by mechanics. In the poker example, “bluffing” isn’t something specifically programmed into the game, but it’s a dynamic that arises from the ability to bet on the value of cards.
So I think I’m agreeing with you in a way now, and we’re on to a different argument. I just think if grammar is a mechanic, then all the tools of construction in a writer’s belt must be mechanics as well.
December 9th, 2008 at 7:04 am
I think you’re looking overly much at the audience. This series of posts is about the act of creation, not the experience of reading/playing.
Game designers, like writers, are able to fine tune their mechanics, in an effort to produce a particular dynamic in order to have an intended emotional impact on their audience.
I’m not comparing grammar as a general concept to mechanics, but each individual rule of grammar, punctuation, and spelling as mechanics. Collectively, these mechanics of writing create systems and their interplay is the dynamics of writing.
Here, let’s try an example:
Capitalizing letters is a mechanic. Capitalizing the first letter of a sentence and capitalizing proper nouns are dynamics based upon that mechanic. if i Choose to alter the Implementation of that Mechanic, i can easily produce a New Dynamic.
A writer can be mechanically correct in all that they write, and yet produce a singularly uncompelling piece of fiction. They rely overly much on the mechanics of writing and fail to use those mechanics in a compelling fashion. i.e. their dynamics suck.
December 9th, 2008 at 7:20 am
Okay, so you’re looking at grammar as an entire system, not as a part of a whole. That’s what I misunderstood.
What doesn’t make sense however is in the MDA framework they say bluffing is a dynamic and betting is a mechanic. If I translate your grammar example over to the poker example, then betting is a mechanic and placing a bet is a dynamic. Does that make sense? I think that a dynamic has to include the player, it has to be something that is created by a player’s interaction with a mechanic.
I also don’t think that the correct or incorrect use of grammar in writing creates a dynamic, so we still disagree there. Fiction isn’t compelling because of correct grammar use, that’s what an editor is for, it’s compelling because of its other elements. If grammar made something compelling, than an editor would be more important than the writer.
So my point is that grammar doesn’t create dynamics, it just supports meaning. If a writer creates something that is grammatically perfect and uncompelling, the grammar is not at fault, the other elements of writing are at fault. Punctuation, spelling, grammar, etc. are all equivalents of code, in that they determine whether a game runs at all. Without them the matter of dynamics isn’t even an issue because you couldn’t read or play it in the first place.
December 9th, 2008 at 7:49 am
Note to self: I think I need to write a post that specifically addresses where the MDA framework overlaps with participatory storytelling theory.
Okay, I think we may be using dynamics differently to. You seem to be talking about the audiences’ dynamic with the narrative, as opposed to the dynamics that result strictly from the interplay of rules.
What you actually seem to be talking about is (in MDA parlance) the aesthetic. In my theoretical framework, you’re talking about the how the audience builds a fabula.
You also seem to consider grammar to mean “correct grammar” or “inflexible rule system.” I’m using grammar more loosely than that to simply mean “collection of writing mechanics.” If a writer decides to create their own mechanics (ee cummings), they are still using a grammar–just not the universally accepted idea of “correct” grammar.
I would also argue that knowing how to expertly apply the mechanics of writing makes for a good writer, and therefore a compelling storyteller within the literary medium. Just as knowing how to expertly apply the mechanics of acting makes for a good actor (that or plastic surgery and a good publicist).
A-ha! Firstly, to reiterate, I’m not saying grammar create dynamics, but that grammar as a whole is a dynamic system created by individual mechanics. Secondly, my overarching argument is that video games are a narrative medium and that mechanics and dynamics, even when applied as traditional challenge systems, produce meaning when the audience experiences them. In other words–game dynamics support meaning.
I honestly think we’re on the same page (possibly), but we’re each carrying the bagged of our previous definitions and use of terms to the table and it’s getting our wires crossed. Thanks for continuing to argue your point!
December 9th, 2008 at 8:08 am
The definition in the MDA of a dynamic is: “the run-time behavior of mechanics acting on player inputs and each other’s outputs over time.”
So the player’s actions are part of a dynamic. The example in the MDA framework of “bluffing” is something that includes the player, it requires their input using the mechanic of “betting.” The aesthetic portion of that is the pleasure the player receives from the dynamic of betting, if I’m understanding it correctly. That’s not what I’m referring to. I don’t think your example of capitalizing a word works as a dynamic because it doesn’t include “reader” input.
You’re confusing my analogy, I think, which doesn’t include a game’s narrative. I am trying to look at it from the side of the creator, and thinking about how a writer’s tools influence a reader. Game writing and narrative are completely left out of the equation because that’s a whole different ballpark. When I write a sentence, if I consider that a mechanic, the dynamic of that sentence is the way it interacts with the reader’s input, or their personal experience. If I’m talking about the aesthetic portion, it’s about what pleasure they take from the sentence, but the dynamic portion of it is what the sentence conveys to the player and how it interacts with other sentences, or mechanics.
December 9th, 2008 at 8:16 am
Fair point. Clearly I need to re-read the MDA each time I reference it. -.0
Also realize that I’m not suggesting a final solution here–I’m exploring and your feedback is invaluable to that exploration.
Anywya, I’m suggesting that changing capitalization rules does include reader input in that, based on their own personal experiences, it changes their relationship to the narrative. On a scale of interactivity, books fall on the low end, but in my participatory storytelling framework, books and video games must be explorable using the same criteria.
Also remember that when I say “narrative” in relation to games, I’m not talking about the textual elements. I’m referring to the entire contents of the game and primarily to the gameplay elements.
December 9th, 2008 at 8:28 am
(moving away from grammar, hopefully not too far off topic)
I think there’s a difference between physical interactivity and the kind of interactivity that is examined by post-modern theory between author, reader, and text. Physical interactivity is something unique to games, but most games lack the kind of intellectual interactivity that a great novel produces. As games develop, the physical interactivity will improve, which is illustrated for me by the whole “ludonarrative dissonance” idea, but we also need the intellectual interactivity that all art produces.
I don’t think that focusing on just the ludonarrative issues will make games into art, the intellectual interactivity is what makes something art. By developing both kinds of interactivity a video game can be art and a specific kind of art that is unique.
December 9th, 2008 at 8:34 am
I agree that this is most often the case, but I believe it doesn’t need to be.
My argument, and rather the whole underlying point of this and the preceding post (not to mention my entire blog), is that if we specifically focus on using game mechanics and dynamics to convey meaning, rather than simply provide challenge, that the physical interactivity will go hand in hand with the intellectual/emotional interactivity.
December 9th, 2008 at 8:44 am
(sorry, follow-up after re-reading your comment again, also, sorry for the insane overuse of certain words in the last comment)
I think the reason our viewpoints are conflicting is because there are so many similarities between the creation of a game and a creation of a novel. And those similarities probably exist in any form of creation.
The process you’re looking at is the creation of a game, and how mechanics and the dynamics they create form an experience for the player. I’m also trying to look at that from a writer’s perspective, but because writing lacks the ludonarrative element that games have we’re butting heads a little. I’m trying to parallel the writer’s process with the game developer’s and comparing your idea of game “narrative” or “ludonarrative” with the interaction of a reader with a text.
I’m not trying to bring the process of consumption for games into the picture (from the MDA framework), but I’m using that consumption process in a reader and comparing it with player input with a game. So in a game, you have three processes, mechanics to dynamics to aesthetics, but traditionally in a novel you would have just mechanics to aesthetics.
I think the way to parallel games and writing is looking at post-modern literary theory, which tries to add the idea of dynamics into literature. Using that theory, I think both games and writing have a lot in common, including interactivity.
December 9th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Not sure if you’re aware of this, but my approach to discussing traditional linear narratives in the same storytelling spectrum as video games is based heavily on the writing of Umberto Eco–specifically his theories on open texts.
December 9th, 2008 at 9:44 am
I was not aware, but I definitely need to read some Eco. I’m working on Borges right now.
December 9th, 2008 at 11:12 am
[...] framework between games and writing, I’m considering it on-topic. This idea was inspired by Corvus Elrod’s post, “Mechanics are to Grammar as Dynamics are to…”, which I [...]
December 16th, 2008 at 10:32 am
What is a mechanic?
If we assume for a moment that bluffing is a mechanic, then the MDA paper actually uses the word “mechanic” to mean “rules”, but “dynamic” to mean what we often call mechanics. This is part of the confusion.
The more general problem is that there seems to be no very good descriptions of “mechanic”. We generally use it to refer to the kind of player actions that we can describe with single verbs – bluffing, again. But for a given game, different people would probably list different mechanics, wouldn’t they?
January 4th, 2009 at 1:55 am
I’d put it this way: Like words and sequential art, game mechanics are a medium for storytelling in the same way that air is a medium for sound.
It’s an explanation I’ve just arrived at myself, and I could go on about it all day (and already have on my own blog). Still, the core idea is fairly simple. A story is given meaning by how it expresses ideas of what the world is and how it works, with a plot coming together to make an assertion like “love conquers all” or “crime doesn’t pay”. And game mechanics, when representing abstract concepts, can express and prove ideas in such a compelling fashion that I’m scared by their potential in the realm of propaganda.