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

[RenleyRenfield]

I don’t think those are the same things. One chooses to climb a wall. One may not choose to have a fight… the rules may dictate that one happens because the characters have done or tried to do something else. Maybe they decided to search a room and a random encounter occurs, maybe they chose a hex to explore, and an encounter is indicates by the GM’s notes.

The mechanics can be said to be driving play in these kinds of cases, no?

Yes, it may start with the player making a declaration… “I want to do X” but then the rules tell us how that goes, what happens as a reault… and then we’re in a new situation and the players are prompted to make some new decisions.

This is why I thibk there’s more to it than just “the mechanics are designed to drive play” because I think that’s one of the primary purpose of game mechanics and procedures regardless of the specific RPG.



I feel it’s inaccurate to say that mechanics don’t drive play in this regard. If you fail to climb the wall, then you’ll need to go deal with the guards, or sneak in through the old sewer shaft… pushing play in some new direction, prompting some new decision by the players.

All of this is incorrect - in terms of mechanics driving play.

GM fiat is not a mechanic. So what the GM (or even author of module) put as options in a adventure - are just that GM choice. There is no mechanic requiring a specific choice or specific outcome. If the player fails the roll, the GM is absolutely allowed in D&D, GURPS, and other such systems - to no have an encounter, a trap, or whatever. GM fiat is always king in those games. In fact, it was the GM who put those there, so they don't even truly exist until the GM says they do.

That is not how "mechanics drive gameplay works" at all.

When using a mechanic, it takes the choice away from the GM. The book tells us what happens, and there is no GM option to negate it or remove it. At most they can diversely interpret it - but even then it must follow the fiction of the mechanic's stated resolution.

While this isn't earth shattering, it is a major difference, hence why a lot of people don't play something like PBTA and say "oh, this plays just like D&D" = because it doesn't! It's mechanics drive play in all new ways. We all know it does, undeniably so... so much so that there are a great many people who don't like the way PBTA (and other such fail forward, success with complications, mechanics driven GM-limiting systems) changes play mechanically.

 

[Aldarc]

The claim that parity between NPC and PC creation is somehow “old school” just seems revisionist to me.

It’s a perfectly fine preference… but I don’t think it’s in any way essential to or emblematic of old school approaches to RPGs.

One of the things that drove me crazy about 3e was that NPCs required as much prep as PCs. It was exhausting.

If 3e D&D is the first time that PCs and NPCs were really built in the same way, doesn't that just make such an approach "New School" by the standards of what would become the OSR?

Moreover, the fact that such approaches were abandoned pretty quickly, including by 3e designers Jonathan Tweet (13th Age) and Monte Cook (Cypher System) in their future endeavors, may suggest that the value of the juice was deemed not worth the squeeze.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The claim that parity between NPC and PC creation is somehow “old school” just seems revisionist to me.

It’s a perfectly fine preference… but I don’t think it’s in any way essential to or emblematic of old school approaches to RPGs.

One of the things that drove me crazy about 3e was that NPCs required as much prep as PCs. It was exhausting.

I agree it's not necessarily old school, just the way I prefer. And you don't need to use as much prep with NPCs to do things this way. Just make sure that whatever they can do is plausible for a creature of that sort with those circumstances could have. An NPC wizard shouldn't IMO have any ability just because they're an NPC (and ditto for a PC), but that doesn't mean they have to be built just like a PC. You can simply the process so long as the results make logical sense in the setting, in my view.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The claim that parity between NPC and PC creation is somehow “old school” just seems revisionist to me.

It’s a perfectly fine preference… but I don’t think it’s in any way essential to or emblematic of old school approaches to RPGs.

One of the things that drove me crazy about 3e was that NPCs required as much prep as PCs. It was exhausting.

Yeah, perhaps. It is just something I like regardless of what school it is. Though I totally get what you mean by 3e, and it certainly is something that could sour the idea. But I think 3e was too complex on the PC side too and I'm fine with some streamlining for practicality.

 

[Deset Gled]

If 3e D&D is the first time that PCs and NPCs were really built in the same way, doesn't that just make such an approach "New School" by the standards of what would become the OSR?

I think similarity of PC and NPC stats/builds simply isn't an old school vs. modern discussion. It's more closely related to simulationism. And simulationism has had many ebbs and flows over the history of gaming, ostensibly with a peak in 3e, and will continue to have more. Not everything is tied to a specific time.

 

[Aldarc]

I think similarity of PC and NPC stats/builds simply isn't an old school vs. modern discussion. It's more closely related to simulationism. And simulationism has had many ebbs and flows over the history of gaming, ostensibly with a peak in 3e, and will continue to have more. Not everything is tied to a specific time.

Sure. That's similar to the point that was made earlier: i.e,. the idea that PC/NPC builds being the same represents "old school" is revisionist. But it's hardly "old school" if it peaked with 3e D&D, which represents the beginning of "new school" by OSR standards. And as pemerton also mentions, there are games like Cortex where NPCs may be built like PCs. I believe that's also more or less the case with Fate.

While I think you can arguably say that it's about "simulationism" in the case of 3e D&D (and BRP), I'm not sure if I would say that building PCs/NPCs the same is representative of simulationism. I previously noted Cortex and Fate, which are definitely not simulationist games.

 

[Lanefan]

The claim that parity between NPC and PC creation is somehow “old school” just seems revisionist to me.

Parity in results (rather than creation method) is old school. You could more or less create NPCs however you liked but if it could have potentially been a PC - i.e. it was a PC-playable species - the resulting character either had to fit within PC-available parameters once it was finished or have a solid and discoverable reason why it did not. Broadly put, PCs were supposed to be representative of their species, if perhaps skewed a bit toward the higher end stats-wise.

If for example Elf Constitution capped at 17 you couldn't chuck in a Con-18 Elf NPC without there being a real good explanation for how that exception came to be.

Specific parity in creation method was 3e just taking this principle a step or three further.

Since then, the idea of PCs being representative of their species has somewhat faded into the background.

 

[hawkeyefan]

All of this is incorrect - in terms of mechanics driving play.

GM fiat is not a mechanic. So what the GM (or even author of module) put as options in a adventure - are just that GM choice. There is no mechanic requiring a specific choice or specific outcome. If the player fails the roll, the GM is absolutely allowed in D&D, GURPS, and other such systems - to no have an encounter, a trap, or whatever. GM fiat is always king in those games. In fact, it was the GM who put those there, so they don't even truly exist until the GM says they do.

That is not how "mechanics drive gameplay works" at all.

When using a mechanic, it takes the choice away from the GM. The book tells us what happens, and there is no GM option to negate it or remove it. At most they can diversely interpret it - but even then it must follow the fiction of the mechanic's stated resolution.

While this isn't earth shattering, it is a major difference, hence why a lot of people don't play something like PBTA and say "oh, this plays just like D&D" = because it doesn't! It's mechanics drive play in all new ways. We all know it does, undeniably so... so much so that there are a great many people who don't like the way PBTA (and other such fail forward, success with complications, mechanics driven GM-limiting systems) changes play mechanically.

I don’t think that all GM side procedures constitute GM fiat. Sure, a GM could always ignore the expected procedures by exercising fiat… but I’m talking about when they follow the expected procedures. And I’m thinking of versions of D&D prior to 2e AD&D.

So when the players decide to spend time searching a room thoroughly, time passes, and the GM then rolls for a random encounter. That’s not fiat… that’s a GM following the rules, and the rules dictating results. Those results drive play.

When playing map and key type dungeon crawling, the GM may populate the map however he chooses… but once populated, the rules tell us what happens. The players declare actions and the GM consults the rules to see what happens. Yes, there may be times when fiat is called for… but I don’t think it’s anywhere near as pervasive as you’re claiming.

This is because early editions of D&D called for far more discipline on the part of the GM. They were not meant to just decide what happens (though plenty of people certainly played this way). They were meant to follow the established procedures.

Then 2e kind of ditched a lot of that, encouraging the GM to simply decide what happens next, using rules only when desired. This allowed the GM to craft a long form story for their campaign, a la Dragonlance.

And I think this was one of the major contributors to the RPG movements of the early 2000s, including both the Forge-based games as well as the OSR. There’s significant overlap in the goals of these movements… and a lot of it can be summed up as demanding more principled GMing. Not making decisions by fiat, but rather by letting the mechanics dictate outcomes.

 

[pemerton]

Parity in results (rather than creation method) is old school. You could more or less create NPCs however you liked but if it could have potentially been a PC - i.e. it was a PC-playable species - the resulting character either had to fit within PC-available parameters once it was finished or have a solid and discoverable reason why it did not. Broadly put, PCs were supposed to be representative of their species, if perhaps skewed a bit toward the higher end stats-wise.

If for example Elf Constitution capped at 17 you couldn't chuck in a Con-18 Elf NPC without there being a real good explanation for how that exception came to be.

Specific parity in creation method was 3e just taking this principle a step or three further.

Since then, the idea of PCs being representative of their species has somewhat faded into the background.

This is wrong about Gygax's AD&D, in multiple ways.

For instance:

In the MM, Elves are 1+1 HD. Nothing in the Elven PC build rules reflect this - in fact, PC Elves suffer a CON penalty.

In the MM, Mountain Dwarves are 1+1 HD, whereas Hill Dwarves are 1 HD. Nothing in the PC build rules reflects this difference between the two types of Dwarf.

In the MM and PHB, only NPC Dwarves and Elves can be clerics (including multi-class clerics).

In the DM rules for NPCs (p 100), NPCs are permitted with ability adjustments and ability minimums different from those for PCs. Under the heading "Adjustments to Ability Dice Rolls for Non-Player Characters", Dwarves get +1 STR (as well as +1 CON and -1 CHA); Elves get +1 INT; Gnomes get +1 WIS, +1 CON and -1 CHA; and Halflings get +1 CON (as well as +1 DEX and -1 STR) and so can start with a Constitution of 19, which a PC Halfling cannot.

On the same page, under the sub-heading "Minimum Scores or Adjustment to Ability Dice Roll", it is stated that Druids need minimum 12 WIS and 14 CHA (for PCs that is 12 and 15), that Rangers need 12 minimum WIS (for PCs, that is 14), that Illusionists need 15 minimum INT and DEX (for PCs that is 15 and 16), and that Monks need minimum 12/15/15 STR/WIS/DEX (for PCs the minimum is 15 in all three).

In the DMG, there are rules for NPC humans - sages - that have abilities that no PC can get, and for other sorts of people, including humans - spies - that have abilities that PC Assassins can get, but without having the other abilities of a PC Assassin.

And the rules for the manufacture of potions (DMG, p 116) make reference to the need for an Alchemist (if the PC is below 12th level) and the benefits of retaining one (if the PC is above 11th level). An Alchemist is a NPC expert hireling, detailed on p 29 of the same book.

All of this shows that there was no general assumption, in early D&D, that PCs and NPCs are built or expressed statistically in the same way, nor that any ability available to a NPC is available to a PC. This point is reinforced by the presence, in the magazines of the time, of "NPC classes", some of which have a clear function of having abilities that will make them mechanically suitable opponents for groups of PCs (and thus mechanically more powerful than what any individual PC might be). (There is a list here https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=24436, though it includes some classes also intended for PC use.)

 

[pemerton]

GM fiat is not a mechanic. So what the GM (or even author of module) put as options in a adventure - are just that GM choice. There is no mechanic requiring a specific choice or specific outcome. If the player fails the roll, the GM is absolutely allowed in D&D, GURPS, and other such systems - to no have an encounter, a trap, or whatever. GM fiat is always king in those games. In fact, it was the GM who put those there, so they don't even truly exist until the GM says they do.

When playing map and key type dungeon crawling, the GM may populate the map however he chooses… but once populated, the rules tell us what happens. The players declare actions and the GM consults the rules to see what happens. Yes, there may be times when fiat is called for… but I don’t think it’s anywhere near as pervasive as you’re claiming.

This is because early editions of D&D called for far more discipline on the part of the GM. They were not meant to just decide what happens (though plenty of people certainly played this way). They were meant to follow the established procedures.

I agree with @hawkeyefan here.

There is a clear process in classic D&D: the GM maps and keys a dungeon; the movement of the PCs through the dungeon is tracked on the map; what they see/hear/experience is narrated by the GM based on the key, with doors playing an especially important role in this respect. Whether one wants to call those processes of tracking movement on the map and having reference to the key as "mechanics" seems secondary; but they do mean that the outcomes of the players' declared actions are not determined by GM fiat at the moment of resolution.