(click to download vector / pdf)

Any of these objects (boxes) could be split into sub-objects (as the character creation / character development boxes could be one object) as long as that set of sub-objects answered and received the same methods as the “parent” object would have.

I think this is about the minimal requirements for a functioning game. Anything beyond what’s here can be understood as a set of sub-objects filling the role of the parent. I think.

So, yeah, in no doubt some inaccurate way (because I’m not programmer), the analogy makes sense to me

It seems to me like you could turn all the arrows in your chart into methods, and all the blocks of text into objects. So the resolution object takes inputs of traits and gives outputs of success/fail and maybe magnitude of success/fail. Then you could design modular bits of game mechanics that fit that specification. Whether it uses cards or dice pools or spinning around until you fall over, as long as it takes inputs of traits and gives outputs of success/fail, it will work with the other game mechanic “objects.”

I think on the macro scale you are better off atomizing things only as far as is necessary. So a box for “resources” makes more sense to me than four boxes all labeled “a special kind of resource” It’s an issue of taxonomy and clarity. Those special flavors deserve their own breakdown elsewhere.

I suspect that my tastes run too far toward structured freeform to be particularly useful when discussing conflict and intent for this project. You can effortlessly divide the two in Fiasco, for example. It is perfectly acceptable to stumble into scenes without an agenda, and there’s a sharp distinction between conflict (optional, sometimes emerging organically, sometimes a goal) and scene (the thing that gets resolved through the resource of procedural privilege). I don’t think it is where you are going with this, although it is a lovely place you should totally visit.

My point is that Matt has included some categories (gear, relationships) based on their narrative role and some categories (skills, motivators) based on their mechanical role.

Gear and relationships are not distinct from skills and motivators, because they often serve as skills and motivators.

So I think a more helpful approach would be to divorce story from mechanics altogether in this analysis by having two categories for things: story groups and mechanical groups.

Relationships, gear, attributes (innate qualities), disciplines (skills you learn), talents (special abilities) and beliefs are possible story categories.

Motivators, skills, flaws, traits and handicaps are possible mechanical categories.

I think this makes it easier to say: Circles in Burning Wheel is a relationship skill. In other words, it acts like a skill and involves relationships. The ‘Nifty Jetpack’ aspect is a gear motivator and skill. The Strength ability score is an attribute trait while the Athletics skill is a discipline.

Is this making it clearer? I’m not sure how else to express it.