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

[hawkeyefan]

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’m sure games prior to this point used it, but not any versions of D&D. Or at least, not consistently. I do recall some products that had NPCs that were clearly designed the same as PCs… but there are numerous contrary examples.

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.

Oh, I agree with that, for sure. The most GM burnout I’ve ever experienced was after running Pathfinder consistently for years after a brief (in retrospect, sadly brief) run of D&D 4e. The burden of GMing such a game is high due to the amount of prep needed. This was one of the main reasons I actively started pursuing other games.

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.

I mean, I don’t think that 1e material was anything like as consistent as you’re describing. The broad points were probably pretty even applied (like Elven racial abilities) but the more specific ones (class and stat limits by race) were ignored or missed routinely.

And as for establishing an explanation for any such deviance from standard rules, the GM could make up whatever they wanted to explain such things… so that rationale doesn’t mean a whole lot.

 

[pemerton]

I’m sure games prior to this point used it, but not any versions of D&D. Or at least, not consistently.

In RQ, non-human creatures are statted in a way that parallels PC stats. But they aren't built via a parallel process (eg there is no analogue to 3E D&D's "creature type as class" - the only other RPG I can think of that tries to emulate that is HARP).

In Classic Traveller, NPCs have stats and skills like PCs do. But there is no assumption/requirement that these NPCs must be able to be yielded by one of the services/professions available to players as part of the PC lifepath system. And animals in Classic Traveller are even more different - they don't have stats or skills, and their wound thresholds are different (they have only two - unconscious or dead - rather than the three that PCs have).

Rolemaster, as I already mentioned upthread, doesn't stat creatures the same way it stats PCs (and PC-like NPCs).

I don't know about other early simulationist-style RPGs.

 

[Lanefan]

I mean, I don’t think that 1e material was anything like as consistent as you’re describing.

I learned the hard way about 43 years ago (i.e. within weeks of first starting to play) not to expect much by way of consistency in 1e material.

The broad points were probably pretty even applied (like Elven racial abilities) but the more specific ones (class and stat limits by race) were ignored or missed routinely.

No doubt. Then again, there's a strong argument that says class-level limits for demihumans were purely small-g gamist; a mechanism to both balance demihumans against humans and to meta-discourage long-term play of same. The world-sim side of me says that's bupkus.

And as for establishing an explanation for any such deviance from standard rules, the GM could make up whatever they wanted to explain such things… so that rationale doesn’t mean a whole lot.

It does in that the GM going to the trouble of making up said explanations opens the door for the in-setting PCs to potentially discover those explanations, which can't really happen if the GM's entire rationale is "Because I said so".

The Con-18 Elf, for example. The PCs in-character might wonder how he got so starchy, and eventually discover that he gained 3 points of Con in his youth by stumbling on to and reading the Book of Toughy-Tough-Toughness. This might (as in, probably would!) spur the PCs to ask if said Book still exists and maybe send them in search of it, or what became of it, and boom: not only do you now have a bit more setting lore, you might even get an adventure or two out of it!

 

[hawkeyefan]

I learned the hard way about 43 years ago (i.e. within weeks of first starting to play) not to expect much by way of consistency in 1e material.

No doubt. Then again, there's a strong argument that says class-level limits for demihumans were purely small-g gamist; a mechanism to both balance demihumans against humans and to meta-discourage long-term play of same. The world-sim side of me says that's bupkus.

Sure. The idea that elves who live hundreds of years and who seem to have some innate connection to magic would somehow not be able to master magic as well as short-lived humans is pretty silly.

So much of the lore of D&D that’s just accepted is little more than rationalization for gamist decisions.

It does in that the GM going to the trouble of making up said explanations opens the door for the in-setting PCs to potentially discover those explanations, which can't really happen if the GM's entire rationale is "Because I said so".

The Con-18 Elf, for example. The PCs in-character might wonder how he got so starchy, and eventually discover that he gained 3 points of Con in his youth by stumbling on to and reading the Book of Toughy-Tough-Toughness. This might (as in, probably would!) spur the PCs to ask if said Book still exists and maybe send them in search of it, or what became of it, and boom: not only do you now have a bit more setting lore, you might even get an adventure or two out of it!

How would they even know the elf had an 18 Con?

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Agreed, but it should be noted that IMO the Forge and it's followers did that by making mechanics that enabled/required that long form storytelling (even if the particular story beats weren't authored in advance). So the Hickman Revolutionaries got the storytelling they wanted, at the cost of tying the hands of the GM. Whether or not that cost was worth paying has of course varied by individual.

 

[Lanefan]

Sure. The idea that elves who live hundreds of years and who seem to have some innate connection to magic would somehow not be able to master magic as well as short-lived humans is pretty silly.

So much of the lore of D&D that’s just accepted is little more than rationalization for gamist decisions.

And, as it's lore, can thus always be changed to suit a more simulation-based rationale.

I mean sure, there's concessions that have to be made in the name of playability and-or fun, no argument there. But when it's possible to change something to better simulate an actual world without negatively affecting playability or fun, why not do so?

How would they even know the elf had an 18 Con?

They probably wouldn't, it was just an off-the-top example of a not-PC-possible characteristic a DM might have given to an NPC for whatever reason. Probably should have used something more in-world visible such as Dexterity.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Agreed, but it should be noted that IMO the Forge and it's followers did that by making mechanics that enabled/required that long form storytelling (even if the particular story beats weren't authored in advance). So the Hickman Revolutionaries got the storytelling they wanted, at the cost of tying the hands of the GM. Whether or not that cost was worth paying has of course varied by individual.

Connecting the Hickman Revolutionaries to the Forge in the way you seem to here is, in my opinion, a significant misread of the Forge. It also very much ignores that many OSR procedures share the same goal as that of the Forge. And that’s to resist the idea of GM as storyteller.

 

[bloodtide]

I mean, I don’t think that 1e material was anything like as consistent as you’re describing. The broad points were probably pretty even applied (like Elven racial abilities) but the more specific ones (class and stat limits by race) were ignored or missed routinely.

And as for establishing an explanation for any such deviance from standard rules, the GM could make up whatever they wanted to explain such things… so that rationale doesn’t mean a whole lot.

Really, it was exactly the same as it is today.

There always is a bulk of players that stand by the rulebooks. If the rulebook(s) say X, then many players will say that is the only way.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

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.

So that's still incorrect. There is no actual statement in D&D and GURPS , there is not actual mechanical rule, that says "you rolled to search and time passed and thus GM must roll for an encounter."

That is a wildly incorrect assumption and isn't even stated in OSR games either. Just waving a hand and saying "The GM should invent problems" = isn't a mechanic, and doesn't' even really give a common standard of play - since that statement can be interpreted so many way.

I think there needs to be a discussion of "mechanics" are so that there can be understanding of what GM fiat is. Because GM fiat is not a mechanic.

Again, a GM populating a dungeon - is just task resolution of encounters!

At no point does D&D/GURPS/OSR have a rule that says "if they fails a Search roll, something non-search related happens." It's a pass/fail result of "i looked for monsters in area, and I found them or I didn't" = that's it. 100% that's all D&D/GURPS/OSR will ever ever ever tell you..


PBTA does, it add utterly new and even sidereal content on ANY given roll, of which nothing need be related to a specific task or can be or not, its not what a Move is.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

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.

Nope. You are 100% wrong. there is no D&D rule whatsoever that says "A failed search roll created a net new encounter.

In D&D, GURPS, OSR = the GM places a problem, and the players roll various tasks to address that problem. So if there is a dungeon of monsters, then the players roll to find the monsters. Pass they do, fail they dont. There are no other entries in the book for otherwise.