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

[Neonchameleon]

Naw... There is absolutely no functional difference between what WW calls a ST vs what D&D calls a GM. Neither system has mechanics to give players or rules agency over the GM/ST rulings.

By the time you hit 2e, no. But there absolutely 100% was a functional difference between what oD&D called a Referee and a Storyteller. A Storyteller did not share authority over the PCs with other random groups in a West Marches style game.

Things had changed. PbtA changes them differently but OSR GMs and Trad GMs are not the same thing.

 

[payn]

It's not a question of special purpose or general purpose tools here. It's the extremely value-laden comparison of intentional vs aimless or the idea that designing a fun game, even if not designing specific purpose tools, could somehow be "aimless" as if it's someone wandering in the wilderness or lacking intention as if it doesn't have an end goal in mind. The pretense is that somehow one is inherently superior to the other.

Thats really the center of the issue. Folks are coloring their definitions with their preferences. "Aimless", for example, might be how a person who doesnt like a generally built system feels about its execution, but its not charitable to folks who enjoy that kind of game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think you are misunderstanding me: what I'm saying is other way around. Better = modern.

Modern [X] is better than Old [X], because if it wasn't just strictly better [X], it'd be [Y] (maybe related to or inspired by [X], but still something else)

Spoiler: Neurodivergent overexplaining

It's kind of like "Cogito, ergo sum": it wasn't meant as "oooh I'm so smart and thinking, and those who don't think are just NPCs", it was meant that cognition is, in itself, evidence of one's existence.

So like "modern = better" is "being strictly unambiguously better is a requirement (rather than the result) to be called a modernization, rather than reinvention (which produces something that is subject to taste)"

If two things are considered equal, it doesn't matter what order you put them in. I don't see how I'm misunderstanding you. You think modern is better.

 

[billd91]

Thats really the center of the issue. Folks are coloring their definitions with their preferences. "Aimless", for example, might be how a person who doesnt like a generally built system feels about its execution, but its not charitable to folks who enjoy that kind of game.

Yeah, that's the term that set me off, which is why I asked about examples of what kind of game could be aimlessly created.

 

[loverdrive]

If two things are considered equal, it doesn't matter what order you put them in. I don't see how I'm misunderstanding you. You think modern is better.

I'm proposing a definition of what "modern" (or, rather, "modernization") means in a thread about finding a definition of "modern".

My definition:
To modernize a rule is to make it strictly, unambiguously better without changing it's purpose or approach. To reword it for better clarity, to replace often repeated mechanics with shorthand terms and symbols, while retaining meaning — as illustrated by two versions of Black Lotus.

It's not better merely because it came after, it can be called "modern Black Lotus text" (and not "a card inspired by Black Lotus") because it's the exact same mechanic, but with improved presentation.

If the rule (rather than it's presentation) is notably changed, then, by this definition, it's not modernized. It's just a different thing, a Reinvention

 

[Campbell]

Other than intentional design how would one describe designing from a vision and only including mechanics that contribute to the realization of said vision (and that actively contribute to play)? What do you call the process of design that answers these three questions:

1. What is the game about?
2. How is the game about that?
3. What behaviours does the game incentivise in the players?

 

[Deset Gled]

Naw... There is absolutely no functional difference between what WW calls a ST vs what D&D calls a GM. Neither system has mechanics to give players or rules agency over the GM/ST rulings.

PBTA does.

That is a very new and modern concept.

I don't know if you consider this relevant, but Synnibarr has a DM challenge mechanic to give players agency over DM rulings. It was formally published in 1991, but predates that by a number of years as a self-published game. So, no, PbtA was not first to the market with that idea, nor is it quite that modern (time wise) .

 

[Campbell]

I obviously prefer games built around vision where everyone (including the GM) feels like they are playing the same game. I think that modern takes on Vampire, Legend of the Five Rings and Warhammer Fantasy are much better designed because they focus on the essentials and do not clutter play with non-contributing mechanics. I also think they are much better simulations of the fiction they portray in large part because they do not port over mechanics built for a dungeon crawler and instead start with the fiction, including the emotional fiction they are building for.

It's fine to have a preference for games do not start from a place of vision for what play should look like, but we need to have language to differentiate and talk about these trends.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm proposing a definition of what "modern" (or, rather, "modernization") means in a thread about finding a definition of "modern".

My definition:
To modernize a rule is to make it strictly, unambiguously better without changing it's purpose or approach. To reword it for better clarity, to replace often repeated mechanics with shorthand terms and symbols, while retaining meaning — as illustrated by two versions of Black Lotus.

It's not better merely because it came after, it can be called "modern Black Lotus text" (and not "a card inspired by Black Lotus") because it's the exact same mechanic, but with improved presentation.

If the rule (rather than it's presentation) is notably changed, then, by this definition, it's not modernized. It's just a different thing, a Reinvention

The word "modern" is an indication of placement in time, not of quality. It is an era, not a spectrum of greatness.

In short, I suppose I reject your definition.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I obviously prefer games built around vision where everyone (including the GM) feels like they are playing the same game. I think that modern takes on Vampire, Legend of the Five Rings and Warhammer Fantasy are much better designed because they focus on the essentials and do not clutter play with non-contributing mechanics. I also think they are much better simulations of the fiction they portray in large part because they do not port over mechanics built for a dungeon crawler and instead start with the fiction, including the emotional fiction they are building for.

It's fine to have a preference for games do not start from a place of vision for what play should look like, but we need to have language to differentiate and talk about these trends.

I'm going to say "people are playing different games at the same table and all playing the games they like and interacting with each other" is a strength of a good class based system. And that it's something I get from both oD&D and Apocalypse World and other good PbtA games (and Smallville).