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

[Thomas Shey]

Also, OMG is was hard to find a possible term that didn’t sound totally pejorative, which certainly says something about sub cultural biases.

This is often the problem with semantic discussions; finding a term that isn't either too broad or negatively loaded can often be a challenge.

I note that in the OSR, you can find a lot of this. People will say they’re playing X, with an initiative system and half the combat system from Y, generators for encounters from Z, and so on. It is exactly the loose joining of small pieces. People do it in other parts of gaming too, but not nearly so promiscuously.

Contrary to what might have come across from some of my posts, I'm not automatically hostile to a system that is assembled by originally ad-hoc subsystems; while I think systems with a central approach and specialized extensions is generally a superior way to go, you can get a decent game out of the assemblage of parts. I just reserve the right to think its unlikely that that system was thought through as a gestalt when someone does that, and that can have a price.

 

[Thomas Shey]

1981...
The influence was obvious, but not direct; Alternity was MUCH closer to Rolemaster...

To be honest, I'd have preferred at the time to have seen D&D 3 be Alternity...

Hmmm. In what way do you consider Alternity and Rolemaster similar? Handling of the way abilities fit into classes?

 

[RenleyRenfield]

..

I do feel it's an interesting example you picked, given that I have been referring to Tactical Shooting and Gun Fu, two GURPS products that set out (intend) to model very different ways of handling firearm combat. It would be perfectly valid to claim both products feel much the same in play as a matter of personal experience, ...

So I can't speak for other people, but.... I think the idea of this thread was "mechanics". So I think it's a very strong argument that has not yet been refuted, that rules will greatly aid a game in the way it plays, the way players can and cannot interact with it. And the types of plots or events that work very well in it, and ones that don't.

D&D does not do gunplay well at all, so it was never made with the intent of having guns feel like anything at all. It's an extreme example, but it is a way to describe how - when a game does not have rules which are designed with intent towards some gameplay or thematic goal, the game won't do it at all or very well.

So intent makes sense here, and it informs the player/GM what the overall goals were of the mechanics.

I would never play Pasion de las Pasiones in GURPS, its possibly the least capable system ever to achieve that intended play style. This isn't a dig at GURPS, because it was never GURPS intent to be run as a spanish soap.

Intention means a lot. And games that have little intent, have less ability to flex out.
Games whose intent was just to have a unified mechanic to make a ruling, such as GURPS states as its intent, tend to not do well when folks look for highly themed games.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

? These can all just be handled as Persuasion checks in 5e, with no special thematical postmodern game design required. Assuming that the player thinks of them and that the GM agrees. This way you have more room in the book for hundreds of exception based combat abilities, like all RPGs need.

Ah... ur... my satire detector is broken this morning. You are being silly that 5e can handle anything social or charisma based, right?

5e is likely the worst system ever made to handle bespoke "i crush my enemies with fear and praises to a god" actions.

So yeah...

 

[thefutilist]

@pemerton expressed my thoughts so well that what follows amounts to footnotes.


Forge philosophy relies on intent but is also specifically a reaction to system as GM tools, where the GM is seen primarily as an entertainer. The last clause is important.

Moldvay, Bunnies and Burrows and Alma Mater, all kind of fit the Forge idea of a game with intent. Vampire the Masquerade and GURPS do not.

@pemerton hit the nail on the head as to why. GURPS doesn't tell you how to play and so it's basically half a game.


As a thought experiment. Imagine three different GM guides for GURPS.


One that posits the GM's job in the way that Robin laws describes in Laws guide to good games mastering.

One that posits the GM's job as being a referee. Something like the GM's job as decsribed in the principia apocrypha.

One that posts the GM's job as being like the way you'd play Sorcerer or another old school Narrativist game.


You're going to get three massively different experiences and the system consequentiality is going to be drastically different.

Modern design in this sense, is design that tells you what the mechanics are for.

 

[loverdrive]

I think a big enjoyment of generic or generic-ish systems is tuning them with a filer and finding your own meaning, and it being half a game and unplayable out of the box is half the point.

Kind of like how they sell Warhammer minis in grey plastic parts, because half the fun is solitary painting.

 

[mamba]

Intention means a lot. And games that have little intent, have less ability to flex out.
Games whose intent was just to have a unified mechanic to make a ruling, such as GURPS states as its intent, tend to not do well when folks look for highly themed games.

and highly themed games strike out when you want to play something outside their theme, even worse than more generic games do

There might be games that cover one narrow theme very well, but I don’t think I ever learned of one where I was fine with being restricted to such a narrow scope. I want to be able to mix things up a bit instead of playing the TTRPG equivalent of Groundhog Day, at least for something that is intended to last for more than a handful of sessions

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think a big enjoyment of generic or generic-ish systems is tuning them with a filer and finding your own meaning, and it being half a game and unplayable out of the box is half the point.

Kind of like how they sell Warhammer minis in grey plastic parts, because half the fun is solitary painting.

They're certainly not intended to be used without some assembly. There's a reason most of them that get any traction end up having setting and/or genre books made for them after a bit.

 

[billd91]

Ah... ur... my satire detector is broken this morning. You are being silly that 5e can handle anything social or charisma based, right?

5e is likely the worst system ever made to handle bespoke "i crush my enemies with fear and praises to a god" actions.

So yeah...

Well... yeah. Extremely specific themes/cultural references aren't going to be done well by any game not including those specific themes and cultural references whether that's 5e, Rolemaster, Traveller, GURPS, Vaeson, Pendragon, or Champions. That said, if all you need is a system for influencing people where you can specialize in appealing to them in a positive manner, tricking them, or scaring them - 5e does an OK job.
And, honestly, a game as specific as Pemerton is describing isn't going to be useful for much outside its own range either.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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

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

Well yes, when you selectively quote and remove the context of a post by doing so, you can then interpret things differently than intended.

My post said:

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

As I said earlier, I don't tend to think of mechanics as being modern, because there are examples of most types of game mechanics early in the hobby's history. However, how the mechanics are implemented, how they are presented, how they are selected, how openly this is all shared with the audience... these are the areas where I think we can easily see a distinction between modern and not-modern.

And in almost all cases, modern is better.

I was talking about specific things. Implementation, presentation, selection of mechanics, open discussion about the reason for mechanics... these things have generally improved quite a bit.

I mean, offer some examples that show otherwise.