What's the Next Great Leap Forward in RPG Mechanics?

[discosoc]

Frameworks. I think we'll hit a point soon (as in within another D&D edition) where the core rules are intentionally simple and offer a framework for 3rd party products. It would be like 5e without the defined levels or classes or skills or feats or spells. Instead, it would handle the six core attributes, dice mechanics (d20 + proficiency + attribute modifier against a DC), hit points, basic rules for combat (initiative, action types, and stuff that's not dependent on skills), and then misc rules for things like light, vision, and speed.

That's the framework, and we'll call it D20. It would probably be a free download, with maybe a $10 physical book available. Then WotC would release Dungeons and Dragons 6e, which requires that core set of rules, and simply builds on them by adding a level and class system, skills, feats, magic, and appropriate equipment.

Until something like that happens, and with a product that has the kind of clout that WotC has, I think there will be very little major changes for a good 15 years until technology fundamentally changes how these games are played. Sure, we'll see a mechanic change here and there (action surges, advantages, etc), but nothing that really qualifies as a big leap forward; just sideways.

 

[Tony Vargas]

For example, the Advantage / Disadvantage mechanic has completely reshaped how we think about modifiers in D&D. Yet it took until D&D's 40th year of existence for it to become part of the game.

Re-roll (or 'roll twice, take the higher') mechanics and consolidating modifiers was nothing new, so it didn't take that long, just took that long to be featured centrally in D&D.

D&D is the first and best-known and best-selling RPGs - and, in part for those reason, one of the slowest to change and must reluctant to innovate.
But, when it finally finds the ruts of a passing bandwagon, everyone jumps on.

In any case, I'm just wondering what people think. Where can RPG mechanics go to better fulfill a particular need/playstyle that hasn't been explored yet?

For years now, the biggest trends have been backwards-looking. OSR, for the biggest, most obvious instance. Popular games from the 80s and 90s keep getting resurrected by Kickstarters.

I don't know what the next great leap forward might be, but the current leap has been backwards. Or, as the R-for-Renaissance take on OSR implies, moving forward by looking to the past, if we want a positive spin.

But, maybe it'll be a technology. On-line play is becoming more common (though MUDs had been around since the days of BBSs), MMOs have been huge. The TT aspect may fall by the wayside once a technology comes along that captures more of the experience.

 

[Umbran]

For years now, the biggest trends have been backwards-looking.

How are you measuring size of a trend? And how are you determining if a particular game is backwards or forwards looking?

(Sorry, I just got out of a meeting discussing measurement and metrics, so such statements make me ask questions now.)

 

[Tony Vargas]

(Sorry, I just got out of a meeting discussing measurement and metrics...)

It's OK, I've been there. Perspective will return.

 

[Umbran]

It's OK, I've been there. Perspective will return.

Though, actually, I think it is a valid question. I expect the answer is actually, "It is my personal perception/belief," and that's fine.

As an example, consider my second question - what counts as "backwards looking"? I see people claim that the move to simpler mechanics is looking backwards. I think that's off. If we are thinking the past few years, then we are talking 4e-era and onwards. Well, "backwards" from 4e there's the OD&D line, which I grant is simple. But it also has 1e, 2e, and 3e, none of which really deserve the title of "simple". The past is full of both simple and complex games. So, WOIN, which has lots of fiddly bits that can get complicated is as backwards-looking as 5e, which has a distinct simplicity in its design.

Really and honestly, the past has *all sorts* of games in it. So, saying that a game is "backwards-looking" does not seem meaningful*.

And, I think my first question also bears thought when we are trying to suss out trends. Has anyone really written out a list of the games that have come out in the past few years? I think it is a long, long list. We can look at the trend then in terms of number of games that share traits and design philosophies, or we can look at it in terms of how much people talk about the games (say, using Morrus' Hot Games list), or, we can look at it in terms of play on online platforms that report play, or in terms of sales (as best we can suss them out) or in terms of kickstarters....

Or we can note that there are really only two big players - WotC and Paizo, and the only meaningful trend is that they both, with rather different design philosophies, seem to be doing well.

You see my point? I don't think anyone has actually presented a cogent view of "where the hobby has been going".




*This is hardly a new argument, though usually I see it in the form of noting "old school" really seems to mean, "That stuff from the past that I liked," and wihtout noting that all the other new stuff one doesn't like was *also* represented in the same time period.

 

[GMMichael]

Frameworks. I think we'll hit a point soon (as in within another D&D edition) where the core rules are intentionally simple and offer a framework for 3rd party products. It would be like 5e without the defined levels or classes or skills or feats or spells. Instead, it would handle the six core attributes, dice mechanics (d20 + proficiency + attribute modifier against a DC), hit points, basic rules for combat (initiative, action types, and stuff that's not dependent on skills), and then misc rules for things like light, vision, and speed. . . It would probably be a free download, with maybe a $10 physical book available. Then WotC would release Dungeons and Dragons 6e, which requires that core set of rules, and simply builds on them by adding a level and class system, skills, feats, magic, and appropriate equipment.

WotC can't do this, because they have bills to pay and kids to feed. Or to put a finer point on it: they have investors to impress.

I actually did the exact same thing, but I'm not selling a $10 book. Yet.

I think 5e is one of the most innovative systems I've seen in the last 15 years.

3e came out 15 years ago. It was almost the same book. Almost.

Is it just too hard to do a bell curve using stuff other than d6's? To me, "bell curve" distribution for mechanical resolution just "feels" right. Most of the known physical world operates within principles described by a statistical "bell curve," so it seems to me that a "bell curve" system should feel "most natural." The fact that I really dislike GURPS implementation of it doesn't mean the idea "clicks" in my mind.

I wanted a game with a bell curve. There are two major hurdles to that:
1) Addition takes time. Adding up the dice rolled for bell-curve resolution takes significantly longer than rolling a single die. It's not a bad thing, but if you're talking about the basic conflict resolution rule, you have a cascading effect that significantly changes your game.
2) Bonuses need to curve too. You can't add +1 to a bell curve roll and call it a simple outcome improvement, because the next +1 is a -more- significant improvement, and the next +1 is a -crazy improvement-. Pardon my use of Millenial adjectives.

4. Methods and tools to speed GM prep and aid with improvisation. Ways to conceptualize adventure content in an easy, understandable way.

This is the holy grail, if you ask me. You simply don't have a good game if you don't have a good GM. Cypher's on it: free the GM from rolling, to focus on storytelling. An RPG that doesn't have a "player's handbook," just a GM guide with maybe a page or two for players - THAT'S the next evolution in gaming.

 

[Umbran]

WotC can't do this, because they have bills to pay and kids to feed.

It may be correct they shouldn't do it *instantly*, as the first release of a thing. But the framework is present for anything published under an Open Game License. Like 3e and 5e....

 

[discosoc]

WotC can't do this, because they have bills to pay and kids to feed. Or to put a finer point on it: they have investors to impress.

They'd still be releasing D&D books (and charging for them) that use the framework. It's *sort of* like what they are doing now, with 5e and then the dmsguild thing, except in my vision they'd be releasing the D&D product in the dmsguild (paid for). Then they could do things like release "class packs" that further expand the product line by adding official options, or setting-specific material (say a dark sun core rulebook that can build on the free core rules without having to shoehorn basic classes or concepts that otherwise doesn't fit).

Anyway, I could easily see this kind of thing getting monetized in the same way that F2P games monetize DLC or offer subscriptions or something. Investors love regular income streams -- way more than peaks and valleys that result from major product launches and then not much else for a few years.

 

[innerdude]

Frameworks. I think we'll hit a point soon (as in within another D&D edition) where the core rules are intentionally simple and offer a framework for 3rd party products. It would be like 5e without the defined levels or classes or skills or feats or spells. Instead, it would handle the six core attributes, dice mechanics (d20 + proficiency + attribute modifier against a DC), hit points, basic rules for combat (initiative, action types, and stuff that's not dependent on skills), and then misc rules for things like light, vision, and speed.

That's the framework, and we'll call it D20. It would probably be a free download, with maybe a $10 physical book available. Then WotC would release Dungeons and Dragons 6e, which requires that core set of rules, and simply builds on them by adding a level and class system, skills, feats, magic, and appropriate equipment.

Until something like that happens, and with a product that has the kind of clout that WotC has, I think there will be very little major changes for a good 15 years until technology fundamentally changes how these games are played. Sure, we'll see a mechanic change here and there (action surges, advantages, etc), but nothing that really qualifies as a big leap forward; just sideways.

Interestingly, other than the skills area of your post, you've basically described the Savage Worlds core rulebook. Pinnacle Entertainment has had this product on shelves since 2002.

And this is pretty much exactly their model. You buy a $10 core rulebook for everyone in your group, then add to the core and make minor tweaks through the settings books.

 

[delericho]

WotC can't do this, because they have bills to pay and kids to feed. Or to put a finer point on it: they have investors to impress.

And yet with 5e WotC have released both the free-to-play Basic rules and the framework-like SRD under the OGL.