Do TTRPGs Need to "Modernize?"

[payn]

 

[Lanefan]

"Tell me that you don't play modern board games without telling me that you don't play modern board games."

I don't play many board games of any type these days, but when I do - even if it's a modern game - I'm playing to win.

 

[Aldarc]

I don't play many board games of any type these days, but when I do - even if it's a modern game - I'm playing to win.

The fact that you think these games don't have a win condition is a pretty clear indicator that you didn't read the OP. It also seems that you don't bother understanding what Retreater is saying with the 10 points in modern board game design, and what you say also betrays a complete lack of experience with modern board games. It kinda makes you look like you're talking out of your butthole.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I don't play many board games of any type these days, but when I do - even if it's a modern game - I'm playing to win.

Lanefan is known as the Terror of Candyland for a reason!

 

[Thomas Shey]

Truncating 3e at some semi-arbitrary point was a kludge fix that could be easily applied to a problem that otherwise required much more complex and less obvious fixes.

I get that, but it did so by, to me, eliminating half the point in bothering with a D&D chassis at all.

 

[mamba]

The proliferation of OSR content and the "back to basics" approach of 5e's design indicate that - for the hobby in general - we value tradition more than progress.

I don’t know about that, that sounds like more complex = better, and I see no reason why that would be true

5e is more successful than the more complex 3e and 4e, and yet I’d say it is a lot more modern than 1e and 2e (also 3e, 4e is such an outlier that I am not sure where to rank it here…)

We talk about popular games, or at a minimum games we like. Not sure modern is an attribute at all, what makes a game modern? Can you rank PbtA, Dungeon World, AGE, 5e, 4e, 3e along a modern axis, and what would that look like?

To me narrative games are modern, but only because they were more recently invented, I am not sure their design is more modern than say MCDM RPG will be. It’s just a different emphasis

 

[Umbran]

One of the true beauties of most RPGs is the very fact that they can be completely open-ended in duration, be it the duration of an individual session or the campaign as a whole. Why would anyone want to mess with this other than for externally-limiting reasons e.g. a convention game where you've only got a set block of time?

Because having games peter out over time kinda stinks? Because a satisfying story has a beginning, a middle, and an end?

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Use your spells to buff or otherwise help your own people rather than targeting the opponent you can't affect. Cover their backs as lookout in case anything else comes along. Be ready to haul out the fallen and apply potions. Do something creative and unexpected e.g. throw sand in the opponent's eyes or flaming oil on its body.

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.

Here IMO the barbarian should speak anyway. Or, maybe while the Bard's doing the dealing the Barbarian could be flirting with one of the servants, or with the noble's handsome son, whatever.

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?

Yes. In these cases where it makes sense to split the party, then split the party. Ideally the GM takes the scout's player aside while the rest of you shoot the breeze; if nothing else, it'll help get your non-game socializing out of the way.

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.

So? There's going to be other times when you as the healer are the most valuable character in the party.

And even healers sometimes know things (over-reliance on formal "knowledge" skills, where those without them are assumed to know nothing, is IMO a mistake).

 

[Lanefan]

Because having games peter out over time kinda stinks? Because a satisfying story has a beginning, a middle, and an end?

What if I'm not trying to tell just one story? What if I'm not trying to tell any story but instead just want to let play go where it will? What if my goal is that the game/campaign goes on as long as anyone wants to play in it?

Hard-coded end points fight all of these, and all of these are things I want from any not-one-off game in which I'm involved.

 

[mamba]

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???

these all sound like improvements to me… if you want to have those, by all means play a game that does, that does not mean D&D has to keep this around in every edition however