Do TTRPGs Need to "Modernize?"

[MGibster]

I find that those who claim modern games today are better than games of the past are normally (words I cannot say here for polite society)...in a nutshell...arrogant pricks who have their heads so far up their "modern" rear ends that they feel entitled to derogatorily sneer at older games and gamers so that they feel superior in their inferior intellect.

As someone who cut his teeth on those older games, I feel as though modern games very often are better than older games. Given that I have fond memories of those games, I certainly don't look at them with any sense of derision. (Generally speaking I mean. There's room for criticism of course.) I appreciate what folks like Sandy Peterson, Dave Arneson, Gary Gygax, Mark Miller, Steve Jackson, Mike Pondsmith, and others who worked on RPGs did and recognize we wouldn't be where we are without them. i.e. Game designers today are standing on the shoulders of giants.

PPS: The video is out and out wrong on some items and aspects. A prime example is when they use Ticket to Ride and say that if you block someone making their route you did it unintentionally. That may be true for those who are just starting to play or novices at it, but trust me, it is ENTIRELY intentional if I am playing and if you are playing with those who use that strategy.

It's true. I deliberately block people when playing Ticket to Ride. Mwa ha ha ha ha!

 

[GrimCo]

Maybe i'm just plain old stupid, but what does "modernize" even mean? Make it more simple, more streamlined, faster to learn?

I'm serious, let's take D&D 5e. Can anybody give me example of what modernization would look? And what benefits would that have over the game as it is now?

 

[Wolfpack48]

Maybe i'm just plain old stupid, but what does "modernize" even mean? Make it more simple, more streamlined, faster to learn?

I'm serious, let's take D&D 5e. Can anybody give me example of what modernization would look? And what benefits would that have over the game as it is now?

I do think it means streamlined, simple and easy to learn. It’s really the goal of all these boxed starter sets we’re seeing and I do believe there are some good examples with 5e, RQ and CoC.

 

[Retreater]

Maybe i'm just plain old stupid, but what does "modernize" even mean? Make it more simple, more streamlined, faster to learn?

I'm serious, let's take D&D 5e. Can anybody give me example of what modernization would look? And what benefits would that have over the game as it is now?

For me, here are a few examples...

• Streamlined language. Don't use the same word multiple times to mean the same thing (dungeon level, character level, spell level, etc.)
• Ability scores. It's between 3-18 (20?) but you never use it. Switch to ability modifier.
• Action economy. Everyone MUST get the same number of actions on their turns. No "you get to attack multiple times; YOU have access to bonus actions - but YOU don't!"
• No "dead turns." You get something even if you miss. Maybe it's advantage on a future die roll, minimal damage, set up something good for the next player. Etc.
• Character sheets should guide you through character creation. And then walk you through the turns to help you learn as you play.
• Clearly use game terminology - bold, highlight, capitalize, format to separate from fluff narrative text descriptions.
• Build in expectations for levels of play - clearly divide power levels, maybe 1-5/6-10/etc. This way you can have climactic encounters, powers/spells, etc., that can capstone story arcs so you provide shorter, satisfying campaign experiences.

 

[MichaelSomething]

For me, here are a few examples...

• Streamlined language. Don't use the same word multiple times to mean the same thing (dungeon level, character level, spell level, etc.)
• Ability scores. It's between 3-18 (20?) but you never use it. Switch to ability modifier.
• Action economy. Everyone MUST get the same number of actions on their turns. No "you get to attack multiple times; YOU have access to bonus actions - but YOU don't!"
• No "dead turns." You get something even if you miss. Maybe it's advantage on a future die roll, minimal damage, set up something good for the next player. Etc.
• Character sheets should guide you through character creation. And then walk you through the turns to help you learn as you play.
• Clearly use game terminology - bold, highlight, capitalize, format to separate from fluff narrative text descriptions.
• Build in expectations for levels of play - clearly divide power levels, maybe 1-5/6-10/etc. This way you can have climactic encounters, powers/spells, etc., that can capstone story arcs so you provide shorter, satisfying campaign experiences.

I would go about it quite differently...

1. Provide resources that empower the DM. Suggest things like reading history books, taking improv classes, and apprenticing under highly experienced/empowered DMd. A full explanation of FKR.

2. Purposefully put in lots of rules in the game that screw players over. Explain in the DMG that the rules are designed to screw them over in order to force them to stop playing by the rules and to instead think laterally within the fiction. Or instruct the DM to replace those rules with more player friendly ones so that they are accustomed to accepting the DMs' judgement over the books.

3. Use multi-level marketing. The game works best when experienced players introduce and guide new players into the hobby. I put in incentives and supports so that the player base is engaged in growing the hobby.

 

[payn]

For me, here are a few examples...

• Streamlined language. Don't use the same word multiple times to mean the same thing (dungeon level, character level, spell level, etc.)
• Ability scores. It's between 3-18 (20?) but you never use it. Switch to ability modifier.
• Action economy. Everyone MUST get the same number of actions on their turns. No "you get to attack multiple times; YOU have access to bonus actions - but YOU don't!"
• No "dead turns." You get something even if you miss. Maybe it's advantage on a future die roll, minimal damage, set up something good for the next player. Etc.
• Character sheets should guide you through character creation. And then walk you through the turns to help you learn as you play.
• Clearly use game terminology - bold, highlight, capitalize, format to separate from fluff narrative text descriptions.
• Build in expectations for levels of play - clearly divide power levels, maybe 1-5/6-10/etc. This way you can have climactic encounters, powers/spells, etc., that can capstone story arcs so you provide shorter, satisfying campaign experiences.

Sounds like PF2.

 

[Clint_L]

Let me try to give some real world examples. I'll change some of the details so we don't get hung up on a specific system.

Example 1: The Tough Opponent
You're a spellcaster and your spells cannot affect a magic resistant creature. Or you don't have the right magic weapon to get past the Damage Reduction (or you're just not strong enough to do enough damage). There is an ally who does have the right weapon (or spell) - so it's not like the party should just run away, and you don't want to hamper the fun of the player who is prepared to deal with this challenge.
What can your character realistically do during this fight? Maybe you can get into a position to flank the monster to give the ally better odds to hit? (Or trip the monster? Or temporarily blind it?) More than likely the enemy is too dangerous for you to get close enough to it. Or it's too strong to be tripped. And your trying to get close enough to do something/anything is just going to put you in danger and it's a smarter decision to let the tank be the tank.
And how long does this fight take ... maybe 30-40 minutes? How often do these battles come up where you can do nothing ... maybe once or twice a session?

This doesn't happen. Ever, basically. As in, I've never had a fight where a player had no useful options. I've had fights where they've been unlucky, with miserable rolls, but that's not what you're describing.

Example 2: Shut Your Mouth, Barbarian
The party needs to infiltrate the royal ball and make an important deal with a noble. Your barbarian has no training in a useful social skill - even if she has Intimidate, that's a bad idea in the circumstances. The spotlight is on the bard who can wheel and deal through intense roleplaying scenes that last about an hour. In the meanwhile, the barbarian does nothing. Now imagine a campaign that has a lot of these moments, 2-3 scenes per session (on average). Now you still need the muscle of the barbarian in the party for when things go bad, but for the most part, you're sitting there doing nothing.

This is an opportunity for hilarious fun and the barbarian player should have a great time.

Example 3: I Just Need to Sneak
The rogue with his high Dexterity, light armor, and great Stealth check doesn't want the clumsy wizard following or the racket of the paladin in full plate. It's important to get the layout of the bandit keep, and the rogue has a good disguise if he gets spied anyway. It just isn't believable for the wizard to come along. I guess we should all go grab a beer for 45 minutes?

These situations do happen. We just split the party and cut back and forth.

Example 4: The Know-It All vs. the Specialist
Hey, it's really important for the good of the party that you're an expert in healing and medicine. After all, it's important that characters get to live. So you max out ranks in healing, purchase good medical equipment to keep the party alive. But what you don't have - effective weapons or combat abilities. Skill ranks in persuasion or knowledge about politics. Maybe you can create a sedative to use on the enemy to help bolster the party? No, it doesn't work that way? Okay. You're essentially an NPC at this point. That other guy - the guy who got to take all the knowledge skills and can interact with roleplay and combat - that's the hero and you're just making it so he can have fun. The minute you dare open your mouth with your Charisma penalties, you've doomed the party to failure, you selfish jerk.

What game is this? Your examples seem to be from D&D, but clerics have all kinds of options in D&D. Healing is a bit of a sucker's game in 5e, but maybe you're playing a life cleric. Not sure how that prevents you taking other skills - you're not going to bother with medicine, obviously, since you have magic. You can wear heavy armour and are generally pretty tanky, plus have lots of spell slots available for non-healing magic. Any party is thrilled to have you.

I hope these 4 Examples - which are ones I see almost weekly - illustrate how many RPGs do a poor job of maintaining fun for the majority of players throughout the session. I think your players would agree, if you asked them. For a hobby that purports to be cooperative, it really rewards solo design.

Your examples make me really wonder about your games.

 

[MGibster]

If we're comparing to film, there can be enjoyment going back and watching films from the 1950s-1980s of course. Many of them are "better" than a lot of movies today. Heck, I might like playing a DCC 0-level funnel once a year like watching a Universal Monster Movie.

We tend to remember the gems like Fort Apache, The Wizard of Oz, or Casablanca and continue to enjoy them today but tend to forget about many of the truly, truly terrible movies made during those same years.

Maybe i'm just plain old stupid, but what does "modernize" even mean? Make it more simple, more streamlined, faster to learn?

For me at least, it's to create something for modern sensibilities. What the audience wants and expects changes as the years pass. What might have been considered a good game in 1984 might not be well liked in 2024. I think AD&D 2nd edition was great and I have a lot of good memories playing it. But I'd run screaming if my group suggested I run it for them. Is AD&D 2nd edition objectively good or bad? No. But Cyborg Commando is objectively bad and that's what I want everyone here to take away from this conversation.

 

[Celebrim]

I don't know. I'm just sort of rambling here. Do you think RPGs need to modernize like we've seen in the boardgame hobby?

I mean, they already have. About 20 years ago RPGs went through a period of modernization based on lessons learned over the first 30 years or so of gaming, and spurred I think by the enormous success of 3e D&D and the D20 OGL - which was D&D's modernization. Even the OSR games are just modernized versions of the originals.

But as soon as I hear someone say something silly like "Pandemic is better than Clue", I kind of tune out of the discussion. Clue is a phenomenal game and while it could use a little modernization, it's fundamentals are very solid and it's a lot of fun to play to this day. Whether you enjoy Pandemic more or Clue more is a matter of taste and preferred aesthetics. You can't declare one better than the other.

I don't think you can draw the same lessons from a board game, which usually endeavors to be a sort of puzzle to solve, as you can from an RPG which doesn't necessarily limit itself to that aesthetic and indeed in many cases isn't what the game is trying to do. So an open-ended board game that might never get solved is sort of boring, but an open-ended RPG is very much exactly the point in most cases. Even if you finish an episode or story or adventure, the simulated "life" goes on - or at least can go on if you are interested in pursuing that. RPGs definitely do not need some fixed end or rigid structure in the general case, or at the least we can't say that it would be objectively better if they did. It might be better for something things - Fiasco and Dread go that way - but it wouldn't be better for every goal of play.

Most of the things you talk about in my opinion would make the game worse. What I'd like to see in the next 5 years:

a) Less system churn. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, we don't really need any new systems. We could use to refine carefully some existing systems - I think BRP is the gold standard here of not throwing out the baby with the bathwater and slowly improving the game - but we should stop seeing making a new system as the real purpose of design. Open frameworks to build games with should become the norm, with either free licenses or minimal cost licensing. It's better to tweak an existing system than design a new one.

b) More system breath. I've said before that I consider an RPG to be a collection of minigames utilized to achieve some aesthetic - traditionally "playing at the world". When I look at my favorite games, what I mostly see missing is good secondary minigames around things like chases, mass combat, crafting, vehicle rules, evasion, overland travel, dynastic play, and so forth. Some systems do a decent job of this (Pendragon is a good example) but I can't think of any system that really does this well. Pathfinder 1e made a real stab at being comprehensive and there are some examples of really good or at least close to good minigames in Paizo's body of work, but unfortunately a lot of their work was just mailed in and didn't play well IME. Rather than rebooting your system every 5 years, people ought to be focused on expanding the possibilities of play within that system. I suspect some of this is going to happen as an accidental consequence of 'a' where people starting noticing that you can take the rules from multiple games and mix and match to create something greater than the whole.

c) Better examples of play. The standards in RPG writing are actually pretty darn lousy. So many books are basically content free. I get so sick and tired of adventures that are the thinnest possible setting guides where the writer seems to think he's doing you a favor by leaving you to make up all the interesting stuff that goes into a having a plot. I get tired of adventure books that are thinly stereotyped characters with no examples of conversation, no history of actions leading up to this point, and no future actions they are undertaking, and X-Files like "the truth is out there" but not included in the book. I get tired of just how few really well-designed adventures there are with good breadcrumb trails, well designed encounters, decent variety of play, and nice twists and payoffs. Like if you are going to do this for a living, please step up the game. Dragon Lance shouldn't be the height of our ambition in 2024. I6 Ravenloft shouldn't have the best dungeon map ever made in 2024. We shouldn't be looking back to the 1970s and 1980s and going, "Wow, they could really design back then." We need more like the Two Headed Serpent campaign for Call of Cthulhu, which is probably the best long campaign for the game ever written and is so so much better written than "Masks" on so many levels.

 

[dragoner]

Al Shab-Hiri roach are specifically considered experimental, there were a ton like it, i still think there are a lot. If everything is D&D, okay.