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

[Umbran]

I don't see a problem here. Use the mechanics and create whatever you want over the course of play as desired. Why should the mechanics have anything to do with "intended narrative"? What does that even mean?

We can approach this with a more extreme example:

Would you use the same mechanics to run a game that's supposed to make players feel like their characters are in a Robert E. Howard/Conan novel as in a Jane Austen/Pride & Prejudice type novel?

Given that Mr. Darcy never swings a sword, probably not.

So, rules matter - the rules you use ought to support the genre you're trying to play.

Thing is, while the claim is that Conan was a big influence on D&D, the rules really aren't great for Conan stories. If you pick up the rules, and play what they reward, there's waaaay too many spells slinging around for a Conan story, for example. And waaay too many suits of heavy armor. And waaay to much magical treasure, and so forth. It turns up that you can beat D&D rules into doing something Conan-ish, but it takes restrictions and house rules and a goodly amount of work to do it.

This shouldn't be a surprise. D&D's design was a new thing. Nobody really knew what was needed to support specific genres - they hadn't figured that out yet.

 

[VLessa]

Didn't read the whole thread but "modern" rules and concepts for me is everything that came after the traditional, GM-driven way of playing that was dominant until the early 2000s. That means mainly Forge-inspired ideas like Narrativism and Pbta, but also new twists that we see in the traditional and OSR formulas with the aim to streamline or emphasize goals and themes.

Eg:
OSRIC doesn't feel modern to me but Mythic Borderlands does.
Mutants & Masterminds doesn't feel modern to me but Masks: a New Generation does.
etc.

 

[Micah Sweet]

We can approach this with a more extreme example:

Would you use the same mechanics to run a game that's supposed to make players feel like their characters are in a Robert E. Howard/Conan novel as in a Jane Austen/Pride & Prejudice type novel?

Given that Mr. Darcy never swings a sword, probably not.

So, rules matter - the rules you use ought to support the genre you're trying to play.

Thing is, while the claim is that Conan was a big influence on D&D, the rules really aren't great for Conan stories. If you pick up the rules, and play what they reward, there's waaaay too many spells slinging around for a Conan story, for example. And waaay too many suits of heavy armor. And waaay to much magical treasure, and so forth. It turns up that you can beat D&D rules into doing something Conan-ish, but it takes restrictions and house rules and a goodly amount of work to do it.

This shouldn't be a surprise. D&D's design was a new thing. Nobody really knew what was needed to support specific genres - they hadn't figured that out yet.

See for me, you include rules that let you model barbarian warlords and also Victorian noblemen, and don't use the rules that aren't part of the setting the GM presented. My version of Level Up, for example, includes material from a wide variety of genres and historical periods, but I wouldn't put it all in the same campaign, so the unneeded stuff just isn't relevant this time.

So again none of this is an issue for me. You just play with the parts of the rules relevant to the campaign.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Didn't read the whole thread but "modern" rules and concepts for me is everything that came after the traditional, GM-driven way of playing that was dominant until the early 2000s. That is mainly Forge-inspired ideas like Narrativism and Pbta, but also new twists that we see in the traditional and OSR formulas with the aim to streamline or emphasize goals and themes.

Eg:
OSRIC doesn't feel modern to me but Mythic Borderlands does.
Mutants & Masterminds doesn't feel modern to me but Masks does.
etc.

The evidence that I simply don't like modern rules and concepts continues to mount...

 

[Umbran]

See for me, you include rules that let you model barbarian warlords and also Victorian noblemen, and don't use the rules that aren't part of the setting the GM presented.

By this logic, you can intermingle chess, Monopoly, and Settlers of Catan and say, "just use the rules for the game you want," and have the result be coherent.

Technically, we should be able to put all the rules for every RPG ever written together in a big blender, and have what comes out be useable.

Games don't work like that, though. Games have core mechanical engines, and they don't all work for all genres.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm going to post a hot take. There's no such thing as modern RPG mechanics.

Butter used to be made entirely by hand. Now it's overwhelmingly automated. Automation is the modern method. By hand is antiquated. Same with building cars. And so on.

With RPGs we still see rules and mechanics similar to those we used 20, 30 and 40 years ago coming out in new RPGs. Yes, there are new ways RPGs do things, like having a narrative focus, player facing mechanics, etc., but that doesn't suddenly antiquate the other mechanics that are still in regular use. It just means that there is a greater variety of modern ways to create RPGs.

Whether it's intended or not, and I think it's mostly unintended, calling the newer methods modern is very subtle One True Wayism. Modern is the good way and should be embraced, and the other mechanics are for the ancient grognards that shouldn't have games designed for them anymore. Never mind that new games with older mechanics get new players.

 

[Fenris-77]

D&D had a pretty clear "intended narrative" -- go into the dungeon and find treasure, trying not to die along the way. Byt the time AD&D came around, that "intended narrative" had broadened to include building fotresses and acquiring followers. I think you are protesting a little too much at the use of the term. RPGs produce narratives, and the game design leans toward certain kinds of those narratives.

But in either case, my point was that aside from perhaps the whole "Vancian casting" thing (which never looked a lot like Vance, and EGG admitted it was mostly designed from a game blance perspective) D&D did not create mechanics to make the game play like reading Conan felt. That was all vibes.

Yeah, I really don't think I am. Not that I disagree with you, quite the opposite. My protestation here is entirely about casual use of a word that has very specific and loaded usage elsewhere in conversations about RPGs. In this specific case I think that the word narrative does an ok job doing the work you want it to, but, personally, I would probably use play experience or something similar instead. I shy away from narrative specifically in this case because I think it has some implications that go beyond simply describing the general flow of play, Narratives are constructed things, if one is using them in a way similar to way one might use story to describe the same thing. The extent to which early D&D has a preconceived story it wants to tell is very much open for debate and using a word that doesn't carry that additional baggage helps side-step some time-worn pitfalls.

I would agree completely that this has something of the nit-picky about it. That said, discussion of RPG play is liberally salted with loaded terms, and avoiding those terms isn't a bad thing if we want to avoid being sidetracked by the ghosts of arguments past.

 

[payn]

I'm going to post a hot take. There's no such thing as modern RPG mechanics.

Butter used to be made entirely by hand. Now it's overwhelmingly automated. Automation is the modern method. By hand is antiquated. Same with building cars. And so on.

With RPGs we still see rules and mechanics similar to those we used 20, 30 and 40 years ago coming out in new RPGs. Yes, there are new ways RPGs do things, like having a narrative focus, player facing mechanics, etc., but that doesn't suddenly antiquate the other mechanics that are still in regular use. It just means that there is a greater variety of modern ways to create RPGs.

Whether it's intended or not, and I think it's mostly unintended, calling the newer methods modern is very subtle One True Wayism. Modern is the good way and should be embraced, and the other mechanics are for the ancient grognards that shouldn't have games designed for them anymore. Never mind that new games with older mechanics get new players.

This largely about how folks use them. There isnt anything inherently wrong in pointing out classic design vs modern. Though, folks tend to place their own value judgements that indicate they think so. Which is why I lean towards preferences and keep a modicum of respect for things I dont. There is room for all kinds of tastes and if somebody is getting arrogant about it, I address that instead of the terms they chose to use.

 

[VLessa]

This largely about how folks use them. There isnt anything inherently wrong in pointing out classic design vs modern. Though, folks tend to place their own value judgements that indicate they think so. Which is why I lean towards preferences and keep a modicum of respect for things I dont. There is room for all kinds of tastes and if somebody is getting arrogant about it, I address that instead of the terms they chose to use.

I agree with your overall message here.

But, at the same time, I also think "modern" can, sometimes, mean better*. And there should be nothing wrong in admitting that. And I see a resistence in fans of old styles in acknowledging that too. So the argument cuts both ways.

*One example is when I see two games that aim at the same goals, and one is simpler, faster, more intuitive, etc. while retaining similar flavor. But fans of old games will discard it out of "it's all subjective" argument. Eg: I find The Black Hack a better implementation of old-school sensibilities than OG d&d because it has the qualities I point to above. But I keep seeing fans of OG d&d dying on the hill of "descending armor class is great!" or "a dozen different type resolutions and dice types for different systems is great!" or yet "nothing wrong with having to consult chainmail rules for combat situations!". Which I find the same case of people speaking out of personal preferences (instead of rationality), as the people who finds modern is always better that you point to above.

 

[Neonchameleon]

This largely about how folks use them. There isnt anything inherently wrong in pointing out classic design vs modern. Though, folks tend to place their own value judgements that indicate they think so. Which is why I lean towards preferences and keep a modicum of respect for things I dont. There is room for all kinds of tastes and if somebody is getting arrogant about it, I address that instead of the terms they chose to use.

My objection to the term "Modern" is that the modern period in art ended in about the 1970s and modern architecture similarly. Modernism in music is the first half of the 20th Century. There will come a day when whatever we call modern ... isn't. So I'd always rather use something more descriptive.