Do TTRPGs Need to "Modernize?"

[The Soloist]

Hum... unless you want to create a multi-solitary RPG experience, I would not copy the latest trends in Euro board games. Each player has his little board and tries to get the highest score. There is no direct interaction between players except for depriving them of a card choice or a resource.

I thought Fate, PbTA and similar games were supposed to be 'modernized' RPGs.

 

[Lanefan]

There's also a bit of "always needing the spotlight" going on. The other characters get to shine, too. Not every character is going to be the star of every scene.

Completely agree.

If the referee is lingering on some character's spotlight time while glossing over others' spotlight time, that's a referee problem.

Not always. Sometimes it's a problem with the rest of the players not fighting hard enough to get that spotlight back.

 

[mamba]

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.

why? Progress from level 1 to 12 or so is plenty, I see no reason to go all the way to 20. Even you were ok with a campaign from 1 to 5, so why does it have to go to 20?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

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

I mean, yes having a campaign peter out over time does stink!

But I would point out two things-

1. The true genius of RPGs to begin with was the they created a world that would continue from session to session. With the ability to grow and advance. These concepts- the "campaign" and "leveling" arguably helped power the rise of RPGs generally, and D&D specifically, and were truly novel for the time for most people- to the extent that it had to be explained how it was different than the board games people were familiar with (where you don't have a set endpoint, and you don't "win").

2. That said, there are a lot of games out there that don't adapt this model. I like to write my own bespoke one-shots, and there are innumerable amazing games out there that are designed to be run in one (or, at most, a few) sessions.

Again, the problem that I have with the OP is the idea that there is a single "best" way to design a game. It is better to view this as a continuum; the things that work best for some games do not work for others; if I want to play Ten Candles, or Blades in the Dark, or 5e, or Dread, or Amber Diceless, or The Witch is Dead, or PF2, or some other game, I will likely have desires for certain things ... and, conversely, I don't necessarily want the mechanics and features that work really well in one game to be transplanted into another. Although I am currently working on my Ten Candles/Dread/5e mashup, where all the 5e resolutions systems are determined by pulling from a Jenga tower that is on fire.

I'll get back to you on that.

 

[Wolfpack48]

I would put the weapon vs. AC table as one of the three things I most miss about 1e AD&D. The other two are exponentially increasing XP in order to level up and casting times. XP for gold would probably make a more distant 4th place.

I get why most people don't lament it, because I don't import it into my house rules in the already complicated 3e D&D I play because that extra complexity in an already complex game is not be worth it, but I do really miss it.

I actually always liked the different paces the classes would level. I think mages leveled a bit faster if I remember.

 

[MGibster]

Tough. Fact of life: there's going to be times during the game when for one reason or another you're not going to be involved. No sympathy here.

Yeah. For me it's only a problem when the duration or frequency of down time interferes with fun. For a game like Cyberpunk 2020, where it might take 45-60 minutes to resolve a netrunner's encounter while the other players twiddle their thumbs, that's too long.

 

[Celebrim]

I actually always liked the different paces the classes would level. I think mages leveled a bit faster if I remember.

There isn't anything inherently wrong with the idea, but it is a bit of a kludge fix to the problem and the implementation IMO sucked. Working out which classes are weak enough that they deserve a HD boost by leveling faster and when and by how much is probably as hard or harder than making classes more closely balanced in the first place.

 

[Lanefan]

Campaign length is entirely in the GMs hands.

Well, not entirely. Some players are more efficient and-or goal-oriented than others, and that can make a huge difference in how long a given adventure takes to play through no matter what the GM does.

 

[Wolfpack48]

There isn't anything inherently wrong with the idea, but it is a bit of a kludge fix to the problem and the implementation IMO sucked. Working out which classes are weak enough that they deserve a HD boost by leveling faster and when and by how much is probably as hard or harder than making classes more closely balanced in the first place.

That 4 sided for mage hp was a pretty good indicator which class wasn’t so balanced lol.

 

[Lanefan]

I would put the weapon vs. AC table as one of the three things I most miss about 1e AD&D. The other two are exponentially increasing XP in order to level up and casting times.

Agreed on your latter two here but I've never used weapon-v-armour-type and probably never will. Just not enough return for the added complexity; and far too many corner cases.