Do TTRPGs Need to "Modernize?"

[Thomas Shey]

It's because of modernization that we lost gold for exp, racial level limits, 3d6 stats rolled on order, the commoner class, material components, d4 hit dice, and true Vancain casting. How much more lost can we stand???

If they're like that, plenty. I didn't think most of those were virtues decades ago.

 

[Bedrockgames]

If they're like that, plenty. I didn't think most of those were virtues decades ago.

I have gone back to playing the older editions and I have to say, I actually prefer this stuff. I think it is subjective, and I am not saying these games are prefect, but I do think this stuff works way better for me at the table (at least with D&D).

 

[Retreater]

Just compare anything from 4E and 5E to AD&D and you'll see the modernization of the game all over the place... even when keeping things that look like traditional things without any progress. Heck... D&D's ability scores have modernized-- giving us standard modifier bonuses every two ability score points instead of the rather random point in AD&D when certain ability scores might give you a bonus and only for certain classes.

3rd edition (the d20 system) was released in 2000. It's nearly at its Silver Anniversary - or half the history of D&D itself.
The d20 system was new and innovative in 2000. It standardized skill checks and ability modifiers, saving throws, introduced positive AC to D&D, Challenge Ratings, and other new features. We haven't seen a big growth like that in D&D since. (Well, maybe you can make the claim that 4e tried to change some things, but it was dropped because the community at large is resistant to change.)

 

[Argyle King]

I have mixed feelings about the list.

I somewhat agree with 6 of the items.

I disagree with 4 of the items (and would go so far as to say design would be better if going back to an older megalithic mentality with those 4).

Either way, I think it can be applied to ttrpg design.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I ran APs in PF1 for a straight decade. Took 2 years to complete one playing 2X a month. Not once did my players complain about not getting to level 20 or missing out on capstones. If we are going by what the data suggests, that rang true during the One playtest with epic boons, they went over like a lead balloon. I dont think folks are that worried about them.

If a level based game is going to actually have higher levels, I don't necessarily insist on getting to them, but I don't want it to be a stupid idea, either (i.e. I'd like it to be practical within a campaign length that isn't longer than a couple years).

 

[Retreater]

I played in a 5 level campaign of it, so I'm not sure why you say this.

If you wouldn't mind - what were the levels you played for the campaign that you found satisfying? I'd like to look at the character progression available.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I have gone back to playing the older editions and I have to say, I actually prefer this stuff. I think it is subjective, and I am not saying these games are prefect, but I do think this stuff works way better for me at the table (at least with D&D).

I can live with some of them, but random character gen was annoying and still is (and yes, I know some people prefer it, but that's not me and I don't have much sign most people preferred it, even back then), gold for XP always struck me as kind of dumb (yes, I've heard the arguments for it, but its for a style of play I have no interest in) and Vancian casting strikes me even in retrospect as a quick and dirty solution to a problem there's much better ones.

But then, D&D isn't my first model for how an RPG should be structured in the first place.

 

[payn]

If a level based game is going to actually have higher levels, I don't necessarily insist on getting to them, but I don't want it to be a stupid idea, either (i.e. I'd like it to be practical within a campaign length that isn't longer than a couple years).

The point is the levels didn't really matter. It was the adventure and story that kept us going. As long as there is some power progress it doesn't have to be start to finnish. Nobody cared about capstones ever.

 

[Thomas Shey]

If you wouldn't mind - what were the levels you played for the campaign that you found satisfying? I'd like to look at the character progression available.

Uhm, most of them? Keep in mind I'm from a gaming design world that is used to relatively incremental improvement that doesn't necessarily expect big changes between starting characters and modestly advanced ones. If a character is interesting to me at the start, it doesn't need big changes to stay interesting, and I found the PF2e fighter I was playing interesting (something I couldn't say about most of the other D&D sphere fighters I ever played). But most of my gaming time has been spent with things like BRP or Hero System based campaigns, and if you got something big and flashy there (other than right out the gate) it was a long time coming so I don't expect it.

If anything, my one complaint with PF2e is one I've seen Staffan make; sometimes I feel like I never get time to get used to how the character players before it changes again.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The point is the levels didn't really matter. It was the adventure and story that kept us going. As long as there is some power progress it doesn't have to be start to finnish. Nobody cared about capstones ever.

Well, as I said, I didn't find the 1-5th Level PF2e campaign unsatisfying. I'm probably just reacting to some of the "solutions" for 3e era problems I've seen which involved truncating the upper end. My own feeling is if I'm going to do that I'm not sure I see any real point in starting with a D&D style system in the first place.