What Do You Think Of As "Modern TTRPG Mechanics"?

[Voidmoji]

A subset of narrativism that I find to be particularly modern is more hardcoded genre emulation.

Mutants & Masterminds generally emulates genre via character capabilities and actions. Its rules can be used to create most comic book superheroes and then play out their actions and adventures. The game may play out very much like a superhero comic, but for many aspects of the genre, the emulation of story and drama falls to the GM and players to choose to follow those conventions.

You could use M&M to play a game of angsty teenage superheroes. But, the modern game Masks: The New Generation has rules and systems that emulate the narrative aspects of the genre quite specifically. With its playbooks and moves, it is specifically designed to give you dramatic outcomes that would be expected in the genre it is trying to emulate.

Another example is Sentinel Comics RPG. In many superhero comic books the heroes will use their lesser powers at first, and only bring out the big guns as the fight moves on. SCRPG emulates this by breaking powers and scenes into color-coded phases, from green to yellow to red. To use your red power, the scene must be at red. Until then you can use your green, then yellow abilities.

Generic systems have really fallen out of favor over the years, and the reason I see most often cited is that they tend not to emulate any given genre as well as one geared towards that genre. This was often said before we entered an age of enhanced genre emulation, but now that we are here, it just drives the nail deeper into their coffin. That’s not to say they are truly dead; there will always be people who will seek out the flexibility they offer. Just that they are now even further from what a typical “modern gamer” is looking for.

 

[TiQuinn]

I’ve realized that I don’t have the breadth of knowledge and play experience across systems to be able to declare anything as modern or regressive if it doesn’t fall within the extremely narrow constraints of D&D. I’d likely rattle off something that’s new to me, and find out that some other system from the 70s or 80s did that first.

 

[SableWyvern]

I’ve realized that I don’t have the breadth of knowledge and play experience across systems to be able to declare anything as modern or regressive if it doesn’t fall within the extremely narrow constraints of D&D. I’d likely rattle off something that’s new to me, and find out that some other system from the 70s or 80s did that first.

Almost every time someone points out a specific, so-called "modern" innovation, it's something that has been around forever; the main point of differentiation from the old is that it's become more widespread and popular, instead of limited to some niche games. Metacurrencies, success with a complication, degrees of success, no "nothing happens" results in combat ... these things can all be found in games from the 70s and 80s.

It's why I hold that terms like "regressive" have no place in the discussion. "Modern" games aren't better due to some steady march of progress with superior, more innovative mechanics. They are simply games with mechanics that are currently popular with a particular subset of players that are large enough to matter.

Edit: The special effects system in Mythras is at least as innovative a change to Runequest/BRP as many so-called modern innovations. Yet it's not (and never was) considered a modern system in the context of this discussion. Why not? I posit simply because it lacks the overall popularity necessary. It's not innovation in the direction a large enough segment of the market wants, and basically the only people that care are a subset of the overall BRP-family gamers. Hence, I think "modern" in this context mostly just means, "Different enough from D&D in a way that's reasonably popular at the moment".

 

[hawkeyefan]

I tend to agree that examples of most types of game mechanics can be found in earlier games that wouldn’t be called modern.

For me, I tend to consider processes and procedures as being potentially more modern. Formalized procedures for group character creation and session zero, for example. Very player facing procedures- all rolls being made by players, static target numbers, establishing stakes before the roll. Things like that are, to me, what makes a game feel more modern.

It’s not so much about the specific mechanics as it is not relying on traditional methods of play,

 

[Agamon]

Almost every time someone points out a specific, so-called "modern" innovation, it's something that has been around forever; the main point of differentiation from the old is that it's become more widespread and popular, instead of limited to some niche games. Metacurrencies, success with a complication, degrees of success, no "nothing happens" results in combat ... these things can all be found in games from the 70s and 80s.

It's why I hold that terms like "regressive" have no place in the discussion. "Modern" games aren't better due to some steady march of progress with superior, more innovative mechanics. They are simply games with mechanics that are currently popular with a particular subset of players that are large enough to matter.

Edit: The special effects system in Mythras is at least as innovative a change to Runequest/BRP as many so-called modern innovations. Yet it's not (and never was) considered a modern system in the context of this discussion. Why not? I posit simply because it lacks the overall popularity necessary. It's not innovation in the direction a large enough segment of the market wants, and basically the only people that care are a subset of the overall BRP-family gamers. Hence, I think "modern" in this context mostly just means, "Different enough from D&D in a way that's reasonably popular at the moment".

The modernity comes from the innovation in these mechanisms. Yes, most mechanisms used today were born in the 19th century, but they've evolved a lot as they've been streamlined and shaped to the games they are used in.

For example, progress clocks were likely a result of earlier shot clock systems in games like Boot Hill, Feng Shui, and Exalted, taken from initiative and broadened into skill checks in 4e, and then further into situation countdowns in Blades in the Dark.

I wouldn't assign any level of superiority on any type of mechanism, regardless of the age of the game it is associated with; a game and its rules can be good or bad, regardless of what year it came out. And what is good or bad is often relative. Some people enjoy the 70s/80s games. Nothing wrong with that. But some people like the old school feel but find some of the older games a bit clunky, that's why there's an OSR. OSR games have refined mechanisms that keep the feel but use what has been learned about RPGs over the years.

Are games made today filled to the brim with brand new ideas and mechanics? No, not at all. Daggerheart, Fabula Ultima, and Draw Steel are examples of games that list other RPGs in their intros that they've pulled mechanisms from. What they do, however, is take these mechanisms and tweak them to make them fit the system and genre style of the game.

 

[loverdrive]

I think "modernity" of mechanics is mostly about presentation: how the rules are laid out in the rulebook, whether there are keywords, pictograms and shorthands to condense and formalize language, is there a dedicated tracker on character sheet, etc.

Kind of how old Magic cards have paragraphs of text, and new reprints are short and concise despite being mechanically exactly the same.

 

[Deset Gled]

"Modern" is anything brought into existence since the futuristic year 2000.

"Traditional" is anything that a boomer did twice.

"Postmodernism" as an architectural movement that began in the 1950s.

"Trad" and "Neotrad" are otherisms used to bury meaningful discussions in meaningless jargon and forgist dogma.

I will be taking no questions on this subject.

 

[dbm]

I think this is really hard to nail down, however on reflection I think modern games are more intentional in design and leverage better understanding about how game mechanics promote certain aspects of play. Things like the rules for torches in Shadow Dark strike me as a clever mechanic to push a certain style of play.

Similarly, clearing away the cruft which pulls away from the desired play experience is another indicator of modern design in my opinion. Some systems have rules for reasons of tradition but those rules either add nothing and just slow down play or sometimes even negatively impact the play experience; that’s archetypically not modern.

That doesn’t mean modern games are all ‘narrative’. I certainly consider Draw Steel a modern system and it leans heavily ‘gamist’ in my opinion.

So the rise of The Forge as a time when people really started digging in to game design and trying to understand it is probably as good a ‘year 0’ for modern game design as any. There were ‘intentional’ games before then, of course, but it became a much wider phenomenon after that site created a forum for discussion.

 

[aramis erak]

For me, I'd class "modern" as Focus upon genre reinforcement and player experience, probably has more metacurrencies than just Experience. Also, modern systems tend to not be physics simulations.

Which is unhelpfully wide.

 

[TiQuinn]

"Modern" is anything brought into existence since the futuristic year 2000.

"Traditional" is anything that a boomer did twice.

"Postmodernism" as an architectural movement that began in the 1950s.

"Trad" and "Neotrad" are otherisms used to bury meaningful discussions in meaningless jargon and forgist dogma.

I will be taking no questions on this subject.