Rather than only continuing with the "Designing a Fighting Game" article series until it is finished, I have opted to alternate between that series and one-off articles until is complete. This time, I will be covering parasitic mechanics, what they mean, how they impact a game, and why they exist.
What is a Parasitic Mechanic?
Originally coined by Magic: The Gathering designer Mark Rosewater, term "Parasitic Mechanic" is used to describe set mechanics that can only function within the context of a specific set of cards. For example, "Splice onto Arcane" is a highly parasitic mechanic because it only works with "Arcane" spells, which only exist within the Kamigawa sets. Like a parasite, it needs the core mechanics of the game to exist, but does not contribute to those mechanics. Furthermore, parasitism is a sliding scale rather than a binary operator. Many MtG mechanics are at least somewhat parasitic, but only a handful are notably parasitic. One thing to note, however, is that mechanics can be considered more or less parasitic depending on how they influence deckbuilding, even if the mechanic "takes" more than it "gives." Cards that "Venture into the Dungeon" only work with the dungeons that were part of the Dungeons & Dragons crossover sets, but since the dungeons aren't part of the deckbuilding process, the mechanic is considered less parasitic than something like Kaladesh block's Energy mechanic.
Here, I am opting to expand the term Parasitic Mechanic to mechanics in any game that "borrow" or "feed" off of the core mechanics of the game but do not meaningfully enhance the core mechanics of the game. Whether it be player actions, subsystems, progression, etc., the more a mechanic takes from a game and the less it gives back, the more parasitic it is. The opposite of parasitism, I would say, is synergy.
Are Parasitic Mechanics Bad Design?
Not necessarily. Many parasitic mechanics exist to add flavor to a game or sequester content or mechanics that could make an existing system imbalanced if they combined. For instance, the Bozja and Eureka instances in Final Fantasy XIV are parasitic in that the various unique skills obtainable in these instances are unavailable in the rest of the game because they do not properly fit nor would be balanced with the main game content. In addition, the progression systems in these instances only work within the instances to ensure that players do not feel as if they are required and can instead focus on the content they like to do.
Parasitic mechanics often become bad when they actively interfere with or intrude upon the primary gameplay loop. If a top-down dungeon crawler suddenly quizzed the player on game mechanics with a multiple choice test at the end of every dungeon, that would be a highly parasitic, highly intrusive game mechanic. In small amounts, elements like these can serve as a calming break, but when they overstay their welcome, they can frustrate players to no end. Whether helpful or harmful, parasitic mechanics often tend to be mechanically uninteresting as they don't meaningfully interact with the rest of the game systems.
Why are Parasitic Mechanics Made?
There's a number of reasons parasitic mechanics come to be. Sometimes it's to fulfill a new gameplay niche not covered by the existing systems without risk of harming the core gameplay. Games with a high variety of content can have multiple systems of varying parasitism that are only loosely connected with a shared progression system. The various minigames and mission types in Grand Theft Auto are an example of this, with modes like Tennis and Bowling have little to no connective tissue to the core gameplay. While any individual mode is often superfluous to the majority of players, the game attracts a wide audience because it casts a similarly wide net.
Other times, it's done because it's much easier to balance a subsystem that doesn't connect with other systems in a meaningful way. The lack of connective tissue between parasitic mechanics and the core gameplay experience results in a simpler experience to balance. The more unique interactions that crop up from interconnected mechanics, the more points of failure there are when it comes to game balance.
A third reason they occur is simply for flavor. Pathfinder Second Edition's Kineticist Playtest, for instance, doesn't utilize spells in any form despite its abilities being functionally near-identical to spells. Even though this results in lots of bloated text compared to just using spell rules, Paizo has deemed it important enough for flavor that the Kineticist utilizes a unique subsystem rather than simply having its own spin on Cantrips and Focus Spells.
Concluding Thoughts
Generally speaking, I believe that parasitic mechanics make for uninteresting games. To me, it's more important for a game to dive deep into a narrow gameplay loop rather than have a wide, shallow one. When there's thousands upon thousands of games around, there's little reason to make a game that tries to do a lot of things poorly over a game that does one thing rather well.
Next time, I'll be covering ludonarrative dissonance and how it can harm both the story and gameplay experience of a game, but also why it's sometimes necessary.
Comments