In game development, chemistry is one of the most misused words in the medium. Most systems described as “chemical” are, in practice, just structured accounting. Combine two predefined items, receive a predefined result, and move on. The player’s role is not to reason, but to comply. The system checks a list, validates the input, and returns an answer the designer already decided. That approach scales poorly and, more importantly, it teaches the player the wrong mental model. The world is not something to understand – it’s something to memorise.
Systemic chemistry asks a different question: What happens if the rules resolve outcomes instead of the designer?
From Recipes to Properties
In Tears of the Kingdom, the important shift is not the freedom to attach objects. It’s the abandonment of object roles in favour of object attributes.
Items are not classified by what they are “meant” to be. They are defined by how they behave under force, temperature, electricity, and stress. A stick is not a handle. A rock is not a weapon. They are masses, materials, and shapes that exist within a consistent simulation.
When two objects are combined, the system doesn’t recognise a pattern and output a result. It evaluates how the combined properties behave when acted upon by the world.
Role-Based Design vs Property-Based Design
| Design Lens | Role-Based Systems | Property-Based Systems |
|---|---|---|
| Object identity | Fixed purpose | Behavioural |
| Combination logic | Lookup tables | Rule resolution |
| Edge cases | Hand-authored | Emergent |
| Player learning | Memorisation | Modelling |
| Failure | Prevented | Simulated |
Insider Tip: If your system needs to ask “is this allowed?”, you’ve already constrained emergence.
Why This Is Chemistry, Not Crafting
Traditional crafting systems are about control. They ensure predictable outcomes, balanced progression, and tightly managed content pacing. That predictability comes at a cost: the world stops behaving like a system and starts behaving like a menu.
Systemic chemistry flips the responsibility. Designers define interactions, not results. Once the rules exist, outcomes are discovered rather than delivered.
A heavy object on a light handle isn’t a new weapon category – it’s an unstable lever. Whether it’s effective depends on force, momentum, durability, and player intent. The system doesn’t care if the result is optimal. It only cares if it obeys the rules.
Outcome Authority Shift
| Question | Crafting Systems | Systemic Chemistry |
|---|---|---|
| Who decides the result? | Designer | Simulation |
| Is optimisation expected? | Yes | Optional |
| Are failures meaningful? | Rare | Common |
| Does depth scale with content? | Yes | No |
Insider Tip: Depth that depends on content volume collapses under scope pressure. Depth that depends on rules compounds.
The Hidden Requirement: A Systemic Rule Matrix
Systemic chemistry does not exist in isolation. It only functions when embedded within a coherent rule matrix.
World-level rules establish physical truths: gravity, combustion, conductivity, inertia. Object properties define how materials respond to those truths. Systems interpret interactions consistently. Player actions manipulate, but do not override, the simulation. Context gives meaning without rewriting behaviour.
No system is privileged. No outcome is pre-owned.
Chemistry’s Dependency Stack
| Layer | Function |
|---|---|
| World rules | Physical consistency |
| Object properties | Material response |
| System rules | Cross-system interaction |
| Player verbs | Manipulation |
| Context | Interpretation |
Insider Tip: If chemistry breaks when systems overlap, the problem isn’t chemistry – it’s rule inconsistency.
RDR2 and TotK: Different Problems, Same Direction
This is where Tears of the Kingdom aligns philosophically with Red Dead Redemption 2.
RDR2 standardises interaction language. One focus verb works across NPCs, objects, and spaces. The player learns how to address the world once, then trusts it everywhere.
TotK standardises system composition. One set of rules recombines endlessly. The player learns how matter behaves, then experiments freely.
They solve different layers of the same immersive problem.
Stacked Immersive Design
| Layer | RDR2 | TotK |
|---|---|---|
| Interaction grammar | Unified | Fragmented |
| System resolution | Authored | Emergent |
| Player trust | High | High |
| Cognitive load | Low | Productive |
Insider Tip: Immersion accelerates when interaction consistency and systemic consistency reinforce each other.
Behaviour Over Identity
The core principle that prevents TotK’s system from collapsing is deceptively simple:
Combination changes behaviour, not identity.
Objects do not become new, named things. They become unstable, heavy, conductive, aerodynamic, or fragile configurations that behave accordingly. This avoids exponential content authoring and preserves systemic honesty.
When a solution fails, it fails because physics failed – not because the game disallowed it.
Failure as Feedback
| Failure Type | Player Response |
|---|---|
| Rule violation | Confusion |
| Systemic consequence | Learning |
| Arbitrary block | Frustration |
Insider Tip: Failure that teaches reinforces immersion. Failure that forbids erodes it.
Chemistry and Cognitive Immersion
Systemic chemistry fundamentally changes the player’s internal dialogue.
Players stop thinking in terms of inventory and start thinking in terms of forces, materials, and tradeoffs. They reason about the world instead of querying it. This is where cognitive immersion emerges – not from spectacle, but from mental alignment with the system.
Mental Model Shift
| Old Framing | New Framing |
|---|---|
| “What item do I need?” | “What properties matter?” |
| “What’s the solution?” | “What might happen?” |
| “Is this intended?” | “Does this make sense?” |
Insider Tip: The moment players reason instead of comply, immersion becomes self-sustaining.
The Fragility of Chemistry
Systemic chemistry is powerful – and extremely easy to sabotage.
It collapses when:
- Rules are applied selectively
- UI overrides simulation
- Balance is enforced through denial
- Exceptions become common
Once players sense that rules bend for convenience, trust evaporates. Chemistry becomes theatre.
Balance in systemic games emerges from cost, risk, and consequence – never from refusal.
Final Thought
Systemic chemistry is not about freedom for its own sake; rather, it’s fundamentally about honesty and transparency within the framework of its rules. When the rules are consistent and reliable, players can develop trust in the world around them, which forms the bedrock of their interactions. When they genuinely trust this environment, they feel empowered to experiment and push boundaries.
This sense of empowerment fosters creativity and innovation, leading them to take risks that they may not have considered before. And when experimentation feels safe and supported, the game ceases to be merely an activity they engage in; it transforms into a realm where they can think inside, exploring new ideas and concepts without the fear of failure.
This profound shift in perception is the essential difference between a carefully designed experience and a truly living system, where the interplay of elements encourages growth, adaptation, and deeper understanding.
That’s it for this one! Please like, share, and comment if enjoyed this article AND…
Grab Myles’ FREE ebook now and find 15 indispensable design patterns that will equip you to craft exceptional Web3 gaming experiences. We’ll also notify you when his new book on immersive design is out!