Do TTRPGs Need to "Modernize?"

[Clint_L]

I think OP was really asking whether D&D needs to modernize, since if we are talking TTRPGs in general there are approximately a bazillion different styles of play. Some might consider PBtA games more of a modernized D&D...but D&D itself has pretty steadily evolved so it's not really clear what the goalposts are.

And then there's the whole OSR movement which wants to take TTRPGs back to their origins.

I think TTRPGs have generally done a good job of keeping up with the times. For those who like that. I'm not sure that the analogies with board games work; monopoly is a lot older than D&D and it's a real stretch to find parallels. And TTRPGs are inherently cooperative.

 

[SableWyvern]

Do RPGs need to modernise: No. Plenty of games from every decade since (and including) the 70s have always, and will always, be great games just as they are, in the hands of the the right group. Those games don't need to change.

Is it great if new things come out, providing a greater range of options for a greater range of personal preferences: Of course.

The list from the video appears to be list of personal preferences more than a list of objective improvements and, as others have mentioned, there are plenty of recent games that don't align at all with the list. Additionally, I find it amusingly jarring that Catan is front and centre in the video still image, and then we get points 4 and 5 about minimising the effects of luck.

It seems to me that most of the OP's thoughts on applying the list to TTRPGs are really about applying the list to certain editions of D&D.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The list from the video appears to be list of personal preferences more than a list of objective improvements and, as others have mentioned, there are plenty of recent games that don't align at all with the list. Additionally, I find it amusingly jarring that Catan is front and centre in the video still image, and then we get points 4 and 5 about minimising the effects of luck.

I'd wager the most popular games by far, are games of chance that involve a good deal of luck and gambling

 

[Wolfpack48]

ISome might consider PBtA games more of a modernized D&D...

Ummmm….. no.

 

[Retreater]

It seems to me that most of the OP's thoughts on applying the list to TTRPGs are really about applying the list to certain editions of D&D.

True. D&D is the big one. And many points from the video apply to every edition (maybe a little less to 4e) as well as OSR titles (maybe even more). And they apply to related games like Pathfinder and Starfinder. They apply to other games I've experienced multiple sessions of: Traveler, Call of Cthulhu, Warhammer Fantasy, Numenera.
This gets to the old complaint that RPGs are often 30 minutes of fun in 4 hours. It is demonstrated when the boards alight with concerns about MCDM's "no attack roll" idea.
Even the lightest RPGs are complex games. I've not seen many that don't have "dead turns" or characters whose abilities are essentially worthless for entire combats, sessions, or campaigns.
And is that fun? I'd say showing up to a 3-4 hour social activity where your presence is important for 30 minutes or less isn't a good return on investment.
Most of the major RPGs we discuss here have that issue.

 

[Bedrockgames]

True. D&D is the big one. And many points from the video apply to every edition (maybe a little less to 4e) as well as OSR titles (maybe even more). And they apply to related games like Pathfinder and Starfinder. They apply to other games I've experienced multiple sessions of: Traveler, Call of Cthulhu, Warhammer Fantasy, Numenera.
This gets to the old complaint that RPGs are often 30 minutes of fun in 4 hours. It is demonstrated when the boards alight with concerns about MCDM's "no attack roll" idea.
Even the lightest RPGs are complex games. I've not seen many that don't have "dead turns" or characters whose abilities are essentially worthless for entire combats, sessions, or campaigns.
And is that fun? I'd say showing up to a 3-4 hour social activity where your presence is important for 30 minutes or less isn't a good return on investment.
Most of the major RPGs we discuss here have that issue.

It depends on what you want. The tyranny of fun is definitely a problem for some people. It is definitely something that turns me off to many modern board games. Sometimes when everything is engineered to be fun and exciting, nothing feels fun and exciting

 

[Breaking Star Games]

Usually when I see people bring up modern boardgames and compare them to modern TTRPGs, its how innovative various mechanics are: deckbuilding, interesting scoring methods, Dutch auction, action programming, monster AI, multi-use cards, etc.

And these are very cool, but I don't think it necessarily makes for a good match to TTRPGs that are generally fiction first - and I use this term in the most literal way. First we have fiction then we use mechanics to support it generally. You roll initiative because combat began, not the other way around. So the purpose and style of mechanics really change quite a bit when roleplaying a character is the primary focus. Not that more mechanically oriented styles haven't been tried. Certainly combat has been that way since the beginning. For example, we've seen social combat systems.

I think there is a lot more room in the place of Dialect, where your roleplaying is built around very different situations around the core mechanic of the game, so its usually not long term adventuring focused like most TTRPGs. For Dialetct, its that you are building your own language.

 

[GMMichael]

True. D&D is the big one. And many points from the video apply to every edition (maybe a little less to 4e) as well as OSR titles (maybe even more). And they apply to related games like Pathfinder and Starfinder. They apply to other games I've experienced multiple sessions of: Traveler, Call of Cthulhu, Warhammer Fantasy, Numenera.
This gets to the old complaint that RPGs are often 30 minutes of fun in 4 hours. It is demonstrated when the boards alight with concerns about MCDM's "no attack roll" idea.
Even the lightest RPGs are complex games. I've not seen many that don't have "dead turns" or characters whose abilities are essentially worthless for entire combats, sessions, or campaigns.
And is that fun? I'd say showing up to a 3-4 hour social activity where your presence is important for 30 minutes or less isn't a good return on investment.
Most of the major RPGs we discuss here have that issue.

So, "why are the most popular RPGs not modernizing?"

Which begs, "why are they the most popular RPGs?"

Probably something to do with what people want, or what they're told to want.

 

[Clint_L]

Ummmm….. no.

Useful response! I refer you to Dungeon World.

 

[Wolfpack48]

Useful response! I refer you to Dungeon World.

Nah, but I will stick with simulationist play thanks.