Do TTRPGs Need to "Modernize?"

[UngainlyTitan]

I have not watched the video the OP posted but I have read the post and I think that D&D and more so other ttrpgs have learned from boardgame design. However, one of the big draws of ttrpgs is that they are by nature open ended and relatively free form compared to boardgames.
I do wonder (and this thought has occurred to me before) that perhaps we could learn about adventure and campaign design from boardgames. I am particularly thing about games like Arkham Horror and Eldritch Horror.
These games have a lot in common with an adventure path but the specific elements of the adventure are generated by randomisers mostly decks.
Since I am currently reading the Book of Many Things, I am thinking that using a special deck as the Big Bads response to the parties activities.
Perhaps spawning clues on the map associated with the current mystery card. Then the party finds out based on rumours they hear or information from their last encounter.
They could then announce in advance to the DM what they want to check out next and the DM prepares the location in detail. Or pulls a prebuilt map and add level and thematically appropriate encounters.

 

[payn]

I play a ton of boardgames. The Euro craze brought in a more modernized playstyle in that strategy plays a bigger part than dumb luck. That said, there are still lost turns and run away leader problems in many games, and sometimes the modernization makes them all the more obvious. Though, generally, games are better balanced and offer a smoother, more predictable experience.

I think TTRPGs have followed along similar lines. D&D 5E took some classic concepts, but its hardly an old school skill play game. There are many other examples of RPGs too. Just because folks still buy 1E/2E, or even modern takes like DCC, doesn't mean there has been no modernization of TTRPGs. That seems akin to saying because Monopoly is still sold that Euro games basically dont exist. Folks will always have a taste for ameritrash games, either from nostalgia, or curiousity of a time past. In the end its all about delivering the best experience, no set of design principles can guarantee this.

 

[Retreater]

My thought is that many RPGs are so preoccupied with "the way it's always been done" that they're satisfied with a hybrid of tradition and change that make for a worse experience without thinking how it influences the play experience.
A few examples...
1) It was less terrible to have "dead turns" in the early days because turns were fast. Now, it can take 5-10 minutes to go around the table. A dead turn in today's game is unacceptable.
2) You can extend "dead turns" to "dead combats," "dead sessions," and "dead campaigns." Classes are still designed that if you don't have the right abilities, you're worthless in a fight. Maybe you're worthless for an entire session - or the entirety of the game. It should not be possible to make a reasonable build of a character and be "pointless" in the mechanics of the game. I've had sessions (online) where I could put my head down and nap for an hour because there was nothing my character could contribute.

 

[ART!]

9. There are dead turns. Characters have to spend actions to get into position. Or other times they're Held, Petrified, etc. This is very noticeable in games where it takes 10-30 minutes to go around the table. (What if we rethought the action economy that movement doesn't take the standard action - just makes it a little less effective? Like your damage is halved if you have to run across the battlefield?)
8. Characters get killed - or sometimes just get stuck doing nothing. [I once had a game where I had to go sit in another room because my character got imprisoned - for TWO sessions!] (What if character death happened at the end of the session? Like the final effect of the death didn't occur until after the last encounter of the night?)
[...]
5-4. It stinks to lose your high level spells to bad die rolls. What if we allowed you to roll before you cast the spell? If you roll bad, maybe you hang on to the spell slot?

I am highly opposed to losing limited resources (spell slots, for instance) on things that wind up doing nothing. I guess I just don't get the point. If you want to emulate fiction where a character dramatically fails, there's usually reasons for that failure set up earlier, and dramatic payoff for the character later. Some rpgs build this kind of drama into the system, but D&D does not.

I'm also opposed to effects that leave characters unable to affect outcomes. If the GM is light on their feet and has systems in place to keep the players involved, then cool. But the GM already has a lot going on, so it would be nice to build something into the game that helps the players and GM through that.

 

[overgeeked]

2) You can extend "dead turns" to "dead combats," "dead sessions," and "dead campaigns." Classes are still designed that if you don't have the right abilities, you're worthless in a fight. Maybe you're worthless for an entire session - or the entirety of the game. It should not be possible to make a reasonable build of a character and be "pointless" in the mechanics of the game. I've had sessions (online) where I could put my head down and nap for an hour because there was nothing my character could contribute.

This is one of those things that always baffles me. If you assume the only contribution you can make comes from the mechanics then of course there will be times your mechanics won’t directly contribute. Trouble is, this is based on a false assumption. Your contributions to the game are not limited to your mechanical widgets. The answer is not always on your character sheet. The open-ended nature of RPGs makes it literally impossible to have mechanics for everything. The rules try to roughly cover the most common use cases, but your character is not limired to the mechanics. You’re playing a “real” person in a “real” situation and you can try to do whatever a “real” person would in that situation. The lack of specific mechanics for throwing sand in someone’s eyes doesn’t mean it’s impossible to do. The mechanics provide a loose framework and guidelines, they do not define the sum total of all possible actions.

 

[Deset Gled]

That seems akin to saying because Monopoly is still sold that Euro games basically dont exist. Folks will always have a taste for ameritrash games, either from nostalgia, or curiousity of a time past.

 

[Wolfpack48]

This is one of those things that always baffles me. If you assume the only contribution you can make comes from race, class, background, spells, etc then of course there will be times your mechanics won’t directly contribute. Trouble is, this is based on a false assumption. Your contributions to the game are not limited to your mechanical widgets. The answer is not always on your character sheet. The open-ended nature of RPGs makes it literally impossible to have mechanics for everything. The rules try to roughly cover the most common use cases, but your character is not limired to the mechanics. You’re playing a “real” person in a “real” situation and you can try to do whatever a “real” person would in that situation. The lack of specific mechanics for throwing sand in someone’s eyes doesn’t mean it’s impossible to do. The mechanics provide a loose framework and guidelines, they do not define the sum total of all possible actions.

Agreed, and in general I think we look too often for solutions in mechanics and rules than in roleplay, referee judgment and player engagement.

 

[Wolfpack48]

Never heard the term ameriitrash?

Ameritrash

boardgamegeek.com

 

[Retreater]

This is one of those things that always baffles me. If you assume the only contribution you can make comes from the mechanics then of course there will be times your mechanics won’t directly contribute. Trouble is, this is based on a false assumption. Your contributions to the game are not limited to your mechanical widgets. The answer is not always on your character sheet. The open-ended nature of RPGs makes it literally impossible to have mechanics for everything. The rules try to roughly cover the most common use cases, but your character is not limired to the mechanics. You’re playing a “real” person in a “real” situation and you can try to do whatever a “real” person would in that situation. The lack of specific mechanics for throwing sand in someone’s eyes doesn’t mean it’s impossible to do. The mechanics provide a loose framework and guidelines, they do not define the sum total of all possible actions.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

 

[payn]

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

Much of this comes down to GM and player playstyle. I am not saying these spotlight moments dont happen, but their frequency and time taken is in the hands of folks at the table. GM should be pacing these things, players should be cognizant of their spotlight time. It is not solely the responsibility of the rules to deliver a good time. There is a "you" factor in all of this. Also, there is no design possible to deliver you a guaranteed good time anyway. You get a baseline from the mechanics, and then you take it from there.