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

[Neonchameleon]

Good grief. A lot of this thread has become a discussion of Generic Systems vs. Non-Generic Systems or people who still have a chip on their shoulder by one person's use of "aimless." Call me back once the topic actually returns to the common mechanical expressions of Modern TTRPGs.

And the weird thing is that I suspect there is more to be said about generic systems. I was commenting over in the Daggerheart thread that I think Daggerheart is on the way to being a modern generic system, supportive without being opinionated the way a lot of modern games are. (Not that I mind games being opinionated; that's part of the point of many of them). And that can take a pretty wide range of settings once we have the domain cards.

 

[Aldarc]

You're the one who made accusations.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I'm saying that it's a banal point to make. That's all. That is about an argument, not a person.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I'm saying that it's a banal point to make. That's all.

You're accusing someone of being banal. That's your right, but it's hardly a compliment.

 

[Aldarc]

You're accusing someone of being banal. That's your right, but it's hardly a compliment.

See the above edit.

 

[hawkeyefan]

No more so than the point that newer is sometimes better.

Well, I also explained why newer is better in this context. And hey, at least I'm trying to add to the conversation instead of endlessly eeyoring everything.

 

[mamba]

Which is certainly a banal point to make.

sure, just like ‘sometimes newer is better’…

 

[mamba]

Sure, but it seems to me like people are resisting the very idea that modern may equal better in some cases.

my take is that they were resisting an implicit ‘newer is always better’ in some posts

And in almost all cases, modern is better.

kinda like this one

I would disagree with ‘almost all’ just as I disagree with ‘always’. It frequently is a matter of preference, not objective improvement in an objective, measurable way

 

[Aldarc]

And the weird thing is that I suspect there is more to be said about generic systems. I was commenting over in the Daggerheart thread that I think Daggerheart is on the way to being a modern generic system, supportive without being opinionated the way a lot of modern games are. (Not that I mind games being opinionated; that's part of the point of many of them). And that can take a pretty wide range of settings once we have the domain cards.

IMHO, the Daggerheart core "engine" has a lot of potential as a basis for other games (see PbtA, FitD, etc.), but I'm not necessarily sure if that means it would make for a good singular generic system.

I certainly understand your point regarding multiple domain card sets, but I also think that you have to do more work to make it work for these other settings or genre types. There is a range of settings/genres where it would take minimal work due to things like tone, content, the normalization of combat, etc. I believe that you highlighted superheroes as one such example. Outside of that range requires more work.

I realized this pretty quickly when I explored the idea of using Daggerheart for a "cozy" TTRPG in the vein of Stardew Valley, Palia, My Time at Portia/Sandrock, etc. (Mostly as a thought exercise.) A few other people online had similar ideas and encountered similar stumbling blocks. Not saying that it can't be done, but it's not something so easy as swapping out new domain cards and creating new classes, which are both quite a bit of work. But I digress...

That said, I am personally at the point of my hobby journey where I prefer my TTRPGs to be opinionated. Fabula Ultima is probably one of my favorite recent games (i.e., within the past five years) where the author's opinions are clear in reading the text.

FWIW, I do think that Daggerheart has opinions. It just also has to be somewhat careful because I think the designers are aware that a sizeable chunk of its incoming playerbase is coming from a relatively (IMHO) unopinionated game: i.e., 5e D&D. It's more opinionated than D&D but it's less opinionated IMHO than games like Apocalypse World, Stonetop, Fabula Ultima (as previously mentioned), or even some OSR games.

Honestly, a discussion of Opinionated vs. Unopinionated Games (and all between) would make for an interesting discussion.

sure, just like ‘sometimes newer is better’…

As previously said...

 

[Umbran]

You are truly an endless spring of profundity.

Sarcasm is hardly conducive to conversation. You're the one who made accusations.

Mod Note:
Folks, it is time to disengage, before disengagement is provided for you.

Stop making it personal, now, please and thanks.

 

[Enaknomolos]

And in almost all cases, modern is better.

I would disagree with ‘almost all’ just as I disagree with ‘always’. It frequently is a matter of preference, not objective improvement in an objective, measurable way

I think the fashion metaphor works fairly well here. If you are designing a game today, you have a whole bunch of history you can learn from that simply wasn't available to someone in 1985.

At the same time though, and even if you're really good, the game that you design almost certainly won't be as good as Pendragon 1st edition.

In other words, it can both be true that median design is slowly improving and that the stone-cold classics of the past tower above even the 'pretty good' games of today: in the same way that modern stretchy fabrics can make for cool new jean designs, but classic 501's are still better than most of the other jeans in the shops.