Alright, let's consider tabletop roleplaying games and video games are two sides of the same coin, where tabletop games are more "literary" and video games are more "cinematic". Both kinds of games share exactly the same mechanical traits (that is, the logic and systems that make the game work). So the difference between the tabletop and video gaming mediums comes from the secondary narrative traits — that is, whether it conveys the rest of the information through literary or cinematic techniques.
Keeping that in mind, you should watch this:
It's an entertaining discussion of what makes the original Castlevania so good and how it uses mechanics to convey information and atmosphere. You can observe how the mechanics, although bound to limited graphics and inputs of the NES, were carefully fine-tuned to convey the experience of being a human being (albeit a warrior with a holy weapon) in a haunted castle.
Swordsman Troper — Reclaiming The Blade — WatchOther way around; all mechanics are narrative. A mechanic that doesn't have a narrative purpose is useless.
Swordsman Troper — Reclaiming The Blade — WatchThat depends on the context, but some games do things certain ways to express a particular tone.
For instance, in D&D, we have HP. If it reaches 0, you're disabled and bleeding out at a consistent pace. The Riddle of Steel, on the other hand, doesn't have HP at all. You take a "wound level" equal to the damage taken, the effects of which are applied immediately — essentially, it goes directly to a crit table. HP would have been a useless mechanic for Riddle of Steel because it aims to be more simulationist when it comes to combat. It wouldn't have expressed anything at all, and instead gotten in the way of the realism and immediacy of combat.
To be useful at all, a mechanic has to express some concept. Usually, mechanics represent the "rules of reality" within the game, becoming the physical framework from which we're influenced to make many decisions. The same way physics narrate real life — providing the limitations that inform us and thereby providing us with information — mechanics narrate the game world.
A mechanic might go too far as well. Paladin falls are a good example. I've not met a single person who thought it was a really good idea; at best, some consider it tolerable or "okay". While the concept of a Paladin being punished for violating the interests of justice and goodness is a strong mechanic waiting to happen, D&D expressed it poorly by punishing the player for not being Lawful Good. Instead, there should have been some kind of reward for having that alignment, such as +X to your AC and attack, where X is your current level. Or something.
But you can see how mechanics attempt to express ideas and rules of the world. Some better than others. I very much feel that the strongest mechanics follow these guidlines:
- It is easily understood and easily used.
- It can interact with other mechanics smoothly.
- It aids (and perhaps helps focus) the narrative experience.
Concerning that last point, think of different rule sets for different games and consider how they change the experience. D&D is primarily a game about fighting nasty things, and they're often quite powerful, so it sets itself up for both low-level encounters and pretty epic stuff. The power scale is quite fantastic. Contrast, again, Riddle of Steel, which is all about the power of intelligence, preparation and cautious action. It lends itself much more powerfully to less over-the-top scenarios where problem-solving occurs at a much more mundane level.
Swordsman Troper — Reclaiming The Blade — WatchIt seems very 3E, I agree - though perhaps it is really going for retroclone with 3E polish. (By that, I mean the game is meant to be effectively as simple as the retroclones - at least at this level - with the more logical and intuitive mechanics of 3E.)
I can see the appeal of the system... In particular, the "advantage" mechanic seems pretty good: it's widely applicable, usually relevant, and a lot easier to remember than 3E's danging +2/-2 mechanic. I also begin to see how the modular mechanic stuff works — skills are tied to background, feats to themes. Presumably, if you don't want to tinker, you just grab one of each and you just know what you're getting at each level.
Not seeing a lot here to make 4E fans happy, other than including at-will spells (which is a good inclusion.) For semi-grognards like myself, though, it seems interesting.
I saw absolutely no reason to switch to Dn D Next over 5E. It just doesn't do what I want out of a game system. Everything I hated about 3E and nothing I enjoyed.
Yeah, I've seen the game materials. There's been two reactions so far
"THANK YOU WIZARDS FOR BRING BACK TRUE DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS" and
"Fighters are boring and useless. I hate this game-there's everything I hated about 3rd edition and nothing that I loved."
I ran a few encounters the other night. Some observations:
1) We got through three encounters in about an hour and a half, and each encounter included at least 10 combatants and was fairly challenging. That was a nice change of pace from both Pathfinder and 4E, which seem to take a lot longer to resolve.
2) Cor Jesu, swarm rules. Rolling 36 d20s is kind of silly.
3) The "hit dice as healing surges" rules didn't seem very good to me. It seems worse than either 3E's method (spontaneous cure spells + cheap wands) or 4E's healing surges. This should really be a fixed, worthwhile amount.
4) I'd forgotten how vicious a simple pit trap could be at first level. The party was nearly murdered to death by kobolds after the fighter and the rogue both fell in the pit.
5) Searing Light deals 4d6+4 at first level? What the hell?
6) I actually really like the Advantage mechanic, and could see cannibalizing it for my Pathfinder game.

Mechanics are narrative. Therefore, inefficient and poorly-considered mechanics result in poor conveyance within the game experience.
Swordsman Troper — Reclaiming The Blade — Watch