Rules and Mechanics, Which is Which?

Today I read a blog post by Raph Koster titled Rules Versus Mechanics regarding the difference between the two in games. I'd been wondering whether there actually is a difference, so reading his take on the subject was certainly enlightening. I am going to break down his main points with my own take on his ideas.

To begin, there are a few types of rules. There are constituative rules, which are math-based, such as the loss of health or lives. There are operational rules, which are the kind of rules that would be written out in an instruction manual, which generally cover what you can and can't do in a game. Finally, there are implicit rules which don't need to be stated - such as the rule that you shouldn't throw your controller at the tv screen. Some early Wii users had to learn that one the hard way.

So if those are the types of rules, what are the types of mechanics?

Well, that's where it gets interesting. The way I understood his post, there is a certain hierarchy of rules and mechanics. Rules are, in fact, an component of mechanics. And rules are then divided into their three types.

So how are rules a part of mechanics? Well mechanics are essentially what the player does in the game - running, jumping, attacking, you name it. Rules, however, are the result or feedback from each action - which can include crashing into walls, falling, or dying. Since rules are the result of mechanics, rules are dependant upon mechanics, which essentially makes them a component of said mechanics.

This definition means that mechanics are actions, and rules are outcomes. When I first read that, I didn't think it made sense. After all, we typically think of rules and outcomes as different things - perhaps the idea that a rule guides the player to a particular outcome. However, upon some deep thinking, I realized this made sense after all. Think of it this way - a rule states if you do x, then y will happen. The action itself is not the rule, but the result is, because it is the result that rewards or penalizes the player for that action.

Constituative Rules as Outcomes
So how does this work for each type of rule we already mentioned? Well, let's take the example of health points for a constituative rule. If the player's character falls or is struck by an enemy, they will lose health points. This is a result of an action that is penalizing the player. Another type of mathematical rule is the scoring system - perhaps the player grabs some coins or kills an enemy and gets some points. This, once again, is the result of an action, the only difference being that this is a positive result to reward a certain behaviour.

Operational Rules as Outcomes
Operational rules are the ones that most people are the most familiar with - the kind of rules that you'd see in the instructions. These are harder to define as outcomes, but I'll give it a shot. Think of it this way - when a player is told through rules what they should be trying to do and what they should not be doing (eg. make it through the maze without running into enemies), this is essentially putting limits on the player and giving them a goal. These rules are enforced by punishing the player if they break the limits (such as running into an enemy in this example) or rewarding the player if they achieve the goal (such as reaching the end of the maze). Once again we see punishment and reward, which are results of the mechanics the player uses.

Implicit Rules as Outcomes
Lastly, we have implicit rules, which are also an outcome of mechanics. This type of rule is by far the most difficult to define as a result. My idea would be that these rules also follow the whole reward versus punishment concept. Let's take the example of Wii users throwing their controllers at the screen, like I mentioned before. This is an implicit rule, but why? Well, because the player shouldn't reasonably want to destroy their tv or their controller, and because breaking the controller or the tv would make the game unplayable. Therefore, doing so would punish the player by not allowing them to play the game, while not doing so will allow them to keep playing. Once again, reward and punishment.

Anyways, that's my take on Koster's blog post. I may not be spot on with my interpretation, but I feel like I do have a further understanding of what exactly rules and mechanics are and how they differ from one another. Will this make me a better game designer? I don't think so, but this is still one small step towards a further understanding of game design as a whole.