Conspicuous Mechanics
What are Conspicuous Mechanics?
Conspicuous mechanics are those that demand recognition or decision before intended play can continue. Conspicuous Mechanics create a point of friction that is resolved through the resolution of that fiction-creating mechanic itself. They create unwelcome friction[a] that is best resolved through engaging with the mechanic as intended. Players, then, are more likely to play [1] in the intended or desired way because it is the way that produces the least undesirable friction.
[a] A letter-indexed footnote to denote it’s addition post-original publish — I’ve heard some resistance to the term “unwelcome” here, people “poorly received” or “not wanted". Instead, I mean it in the sense of “not welcomed”, as in: The friction interjects itself by its own authority rather than waiting to be welcomed in.
Unwelcome in the sense a Vampire might use.
[1] Here, play can mean either the diegetic play (narrative - to assert something as true), or the endogenous play (the rules, to make a decision in mechanics)
As an example, let’s compare two different types of dice pool resolution — Blades in the Dark (John Harper, Evil Hat Games, 2017) and PSI RUN (Baker, Lingner, and Moore[b], Night Sky Games, 2011):
[b]Originally cited as PSI RUN (Meg Baker) - I have added Lingner and Moore to this citation, which I may engage with in more depth at a later date.
To resolve an action roll in Blades in the Dark, the player states their method of action and intended goal. The player then selects an action rating that fits. The GM establishes the position and effect for that method of action and goal. Optionally, the player may choose to add bonus dice to their roll, otherwise they take up a number of dice equal to the Action Rating they chose, and roll them. That’s the whole story.
Because the player takes up a number of dice dependent on the Action Rating they choose, their choice of Action (and thus fictional approach) is a Conspicuous Mechanic. Because no other steps depend on Position and Effect, setting Position and Effect is not a Conspicuous Mechanic [2].
[2] Arguably, it is when XP or Special Abilities get involved, but we aren’t introducing that yet
In PSI RUN, when we reach a conflict on which we want to roll, the player states their method of action and intended goal. The table collectively determines what is at stake (“the risks”). For each risk selected, the player adds another die to their pool. When the pool is complete, the runner rolls those dice and assigns them against the risks at stake (usually, high being good for the runner, low being bad for the runner).
Because the number of dice we roll is dependent on the number (and description) of Risks, establishing Risks is a Conspicuous Mechanic. Because “what, exactly, are you doing” (what Blades would call your approach or Action) is not dependent upon any other decision, it is not Conspicuous.
In both games “how many dice we roll” creates a Conspicuous Mechanic. We cannot proceed through resolution without making some sort of decision or assertion that informs how many dice we roll. In Blades, that is the method (the action rating). In PSI RUN, it is the risk. It is feasible that Blades in the Dark can progress through a roll without ever discussing the exact risk or even setting position/effect. In PSI RUN, it is feasible that we can get all the way through rolling the dice without having a clear fictional idea of exactly what the player character is doing (defining risks often clarifies the scale or stakes of fiction without clarifying the facts of fiction, eg “Yeah, I’m pushing around some cars with my mind — I think things could get dangerous with that!” (PSI RUN, Night Sky Games, 2011). It’s no coincidence that the thing that is clarified in this example is the Conspicuous part, not the framing of fiction)
As a counter-example, we can look to D&D 5e. Because D&D has chosen to place all of the mechanical recognition at the end of the resolution, there is almost no unwelcome friction generated by the mechanics, and thus nothing Conspicuous. While this can be beneficial in some forms of play, it can allow players to “rush” through the mechanisation:
“You stand before a giant fresco showing a battle long, long, past. There must be a way past it. You can hear the sounds of muttering from somewhere deep behind it.”
“I rolled an 18”
”To do what?”
”I dunno. To get past the Fresco.”
”Are you searching or is this a spell or is…”
”It’s an 18. Whatever you want me to add to it makes it more than an 18. So, just tell me how I get past it.”
Whether or not it is desirable, or we can walk it back, the rules allow for this kind of behaviour. It’s not the player’s fault either; it’s the nature of finding a shorter line between the current obstacle and the next victory [3]. If I have to roll anyway, and the high roll is the most crucial part of my success, why not just start there?
[3] Oft quoted Soren Johnsen, sometimes attributed to Sid Meier, both of the Civilisation series: If given the chance, players will optimise the fun out of the game.
So Blades is Conspicuous in one way, PSI RUN in another, and 5e…not much Conspicuous at all. But what 5e does have is ELASTICITY.
Elasticity and Conspicuousness
Elasticity is the capacity of a ruleset to “snap back” when steps are forgotten. For example, in a D&D 5e game, Advantage and Disadvantage is incredibly elastic. If the player rolls without Advantage or Disadvantage, they can simply roll another d20 after the fact. This is because both Advantage and Disadvantage are additive: they add something to the roll rather than changing or removing something (in this case, dice). If we imagine Advantage has the player roll 2d20 and keep the highest, but Disadvantage has the player roll a d10, then Disadvantage is no longer elastic — We can’t stretch the rules and have them snap back: The d20 you rolled is void, and we have to reset the play space (and, sometimes harder, reset our shared fiction) instead of just letting it catch up to our changed circumstances.
Conspicuousness defines an anchor point, a piton lodged in the rock, for our elasticity. For better and for worse. Elasticity cannot naturally stretch back past a Conspicuous Mechanic. For example, if we forget to set position and effect for a roll in Blades, we can do that post-roll without many negative effects on the fiction or play experience. We cannot, however, retcon the Action that the player took (“Wait, no, I was Studying, not Skirmishing. But that’s only one dot instead of three…”). Unless, of course, they are Conspicuously Identical (ie they roll the same amount of dice either way) or Additive (per Advantage and Disadvantage above).
Elasticity is defined by a lack of friction around when we make decisions (or, arguably, if we make decisions), while Conspicuousness is defined by an introduction of friction around our decisions. We cannot have all of both.
Why Add Friction Through Conspicuous Mechanics?
PbtA and Apocalypse World use Moves as a set of Conspicuous Mechanics. When PbtA players look to game mechanics for support or resolution, the requirement to select which specific Move is being resolved forces the player(s) to assert some fact about the narrative at hand (ie to enter into dialogue with the fiction). This requires, though, that the move itself is written well enough (and distinctly enough) that the friction is worthwhile [4]. One reason that converting Trad “actions” into PbtA “Moves” is a fraught design step is that often designers misunderstand functionality for friction [5].
[4] This is why move diversity is critical in PbtA. In Kimi Hughes’ Starscape (Kickstarted 2024, Published TBA), Player Characters can resolve conflicts between each other by either Confronting or Comforting. Because Confronting and Comforting have different resource requirements and output different diegetic and endogenous outcomes, the player’s decision of which to choose is meaningful. Conversely, in Hamish Cameron’s The Sprawl (Ardens Ludre, 2015), the Matrix Moves Manipulate Systems and Compromise Security have identical outputs, which means introducing a Conspicuous choice between them doesn’t benefit play.
[5] Stay tuned for a future post on the difference between functionality and friction, or just read anything Sean McCoy has posted since 2021.
Often, this results in one of two complaints against PbtA play: the first is that Moves feel restrictive (“I can ONLY do these things that I have a Move for?!” - no you can do other stuff, but I get it) and the second is that the Moves themselves are not compelling (“Wow. Act Under Fire. Seduce/Manipulate. Go Aggro. Again.” - And yeah, I get this one too). In both cases, these complaints are against the friction introduced by the Conspicuous Mechanics.
In the first, when feeling restricted, I WANT to roll dice and assert a fact about the world (ie I want to, as a player, turn my Character Construct Power into Narrative Authority or World Power), but I can’t because PbtA has introduced a frictional (Conspicuous) step that asks “If you want that outcome, which of these risks or costs are you putting on the line to get what you want?” (ie against the outcomes of which Move are you rolling dice?).
Secondly, when the game keeps introducing Friction around stuff players don’t care about, the friction is in the wrong place. “I am trying to play Alien here, why is the game asking me about Turning Someone On?” Because Friction is about generating dialogue (and because dialogue is a back-and-forth conversation), then both parties (the players and the game) need to be trying to have the same conversation. Otherwise, friction is just the game shouting over the players and the players ignoring or acquiescing.
In both cases, Friction has to be Cooperative with the players and the act of play. Cooperative Conspicuousness supports the desired play experience, even (especially) when it creates friction against it.
Opportunities for Conspicuous Design
Conspicuous Mechanics are the funnels of RPG Design: They take a very wide selection of states of play and mandate them toward certain buckets. I ask of you (especially those of you designing in PbtA or FitD systems) to really consider when you want to interrupt the flow of play and where you intend to redirect that play. I ask you to honestly consider the questions that are already being answered in play as candidates for lower-friction elastic mechanics and the questions that aren’t answered but are compelling as candidates for Conspicuous Mechanics.
Instead of asking me to roll the number of dice assigned to a verb describing what my scoundrel is doing, consider how the game feels if you ask me which piece of gear I’m using (and how many dice it grants). Or what risks are at stake, and we change the dice pool depending on what consequences I’m willing to face. Or which of my contacts this action could implicate, and building my pool based on who is going to take the fall for my failures. Heck, just consider how the flow of conversation changes if you offer me a different dice pool for Desperate or Limited Actions (suddenly, position and effect aren’t so elastic, are they?)
Instead of a PbtA move that triggers from me inciting violence and ends with the resolution of that violence, consider resolving that move with respect to the impact on the community: When you GO AGGRO… “First lose 4 community cohesion.” “First, name an NPC that breaks rank.” “Then, if your target did want you want, advance the ship toward mutiny.” Earn the friction you’re forcing onto me by making the outcomes something that I wouldn’t have reached on my own. When your funnel catches me, use it to eject me into a different sphere of play rather than simply taking responsibility for the flowchart I probably would’ve followed anyway.
I understand that each of these fundamentally alters the dialogue at hand in a FitD or PbtA game, but this is the whole point: These mechanics are Conspicuous, and so they allow you to demand some fundamental alteration. In fact, I would say that if you aren’t making some alterations through the mechanical flow, then you should probably be using something low-friction and elastic instead. And to build a game without friction is to not build a game at all.
