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

[Fenris-77]

I think I'm not as sure that the original game pieces needed a particular trope or exemplar to work. Heroes and Superheroes can be Aragorn, Eomer, Conan, Lancelot, etc without worrying too much about details beyond that. And all we need to know about Wizards, exemplar wise, is that they use magic. The artillery-like effects are a product of wargaming requirements and conventions, plus maybe a dash of Dr Strange.

The role of classes, and their relationship to tropes, has changed a lot since Chainmail; and beginnings of that change can be seen even with the Druid and the Monk. I still think that, in the original conception of the game, game function was primary.

But isn't the idea of heroes and superheroes already based to some extent on these same literary and historical exemplars? I find the examples of Druid and Monk just further my argument that the exemplar is key in the decision to frame the idea of classes at all. If I want Druids in my game, as I see in history or literature, I need (or perhaps really want) a way to represent Druids that's different from the basic Hero. How do I do that? Partially with evocative fluff, but more importantly with a bespoke set of skills and abilities. So yes, that indexes game-piece distinction, but it also strongly indexes the exemplar being differentiated.

The early wizard doesn't change this equation much either, it is present specifically because of a desire to have those characters (like Merlin, or whomever) in the game next Enkil and Hercules. The access to magical powers is the obvious mechanical design difference. But again, without the exemplars, there'd be no wizard. I think it's really, really tough to pull D&D apart at this historical moment to separate game piece from literary/historical exemplar. You simply don't get D&D without both working at the same time.

I suppose that all these powers could have just been heaped on the hero and added via point buy as needed, but there we are already dropping a great whopping pile of anachronisms into the discussion. I think the explanation that makes the most sense while assuming the least is that Gary and Dave saw Wizards and Heroes as different things and so designed them as different things represented by different mechanics. On from there we eventually get to here.

What I'm sensitive to - most recently, I was commenting on it in relation to Mythic Bastionland - is when a RPG doesn't tell the GM how they should be making framing decisions.

Classic D&D does (although it doesn't use the language of framing) - the GM frames by reference to the location of the PCs on the map, with reference to the key; and also by reference to the outcomes of wandering monster rolls. Burning Wheel does too, albeit it's rules for framing are completely different from classic D&D. Apocalypse World is a little bit more indirect, but does set out a method for framing - the interplay between the prep of fronts, and the making of GM moves.

But the GM-as-world-mediator approach, at least when explained by its proponents, tends to eschew giving an account of how the GM is to make these framing decisions. It doesn't want them to be done by reference to rising action, or theme; but what approach should be used is not normally explained.

The extent to which framing is handled well by game A is all over the map. It's certainly not a historical march toward best practices. Games continue to do this well and poorly. My opinion is that this is a function of how well or poorly the designer in questions actually understands what's happening at the table, as opposed to what's happening in a rulebook.

In the specific case you mention the most common reply I've seen is that the GM adjudicates consequences based on character actions and changes the setting appropriately. Obviously, this sounds like framing without calling it framing and has been something I've argued with folks about quite a number of times. I suspect that it's up to the individual DM and their prior experience how well or poorly this is accomplished.

 

[mamba]

Your example already makes the assumption that "simpler" and "faster" are objectively better, so I can't see your claim here as without bias, despite your suggestion otherwise.

if the result is basically the same, then simpler and faster are better, you will find this very widely accepted

Why would anyone want slow and convoluted if it ultimately plays the same

 

[Fenris-77]

if the result is basically the same, then simpler and faster are better, you will find this very widely accepted

Why would anyone want slow and convoluted if it ultimately plays the same

I think the point he's making is the results aren't always the same. Faster is only a guarantee of fastness, but not necessarily fidelity or elegance. Generally, I agree with you - if something can produce the same results or feel with less faffing then it's probably just a superior mechanic.

For example, simply rolling a d6 for every weapon's damage is much faster than accounting for character skill, weapon qualities, and opponent defense. The desired play experience for some people involves more fidelity in combat mechanics than you get with the d6, regardless of its speed. That's a pretty extreme (and obvious) example but I didn't want to get bogged down in the details.

 

[mamba]

I think the point he's making is the results aren't always the same. Faster is only a guaranteed of fastness, but not necessarily fidelity or elegance.

that is what the if at the beginning of the sentence is for.

You can obviously lose detail in your pursuit of simplicity and speed. At what point detail you care about gets lost will vary

 

[Neonchameleon]

Clerics are the only character trope that's fairly rare, but guess where you'll find one? Yep, Robin Hood again. Good ol' Tuck.

Not even close. I can not think of one legend (although there probably is one) where he broke out the healing magic or turned undead. Friar Tuck's job or background is friar but his D&D class is either fighter or rogue.

D&D is its own genre with its own genre tropes and traits, and D&D clerics are especially divergent from their historical and associated mythological forebears.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Just lack of complexity.

For instance, Non-Modern:
View attachment 426857
Modern:
View attachment 426858

As noted, that second example allows for fewer outcomes and less granularity. Whether or not that's a good or bad thing is subjective.

And I think Harnmaster is cool

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'd personally prefer if the thing that @Lanefan values to be important to the 'group narrative' is lessened and played down however.

And I'd prefer literally the opposite. We all have our opinions, and they can't all be supported simultaneously in the same game.

 

[Fenris-77]

And I think Harnmaster is cool

I also think it's super cool, but the idea of actually trying to play it gives me a headache.

 

[Micah Sweet]

if the result is basically the same, then simpler and faster are better, you will find this very widely accepted

Why would anyone want slow and convoluted if it ultimately plays the same

How can the result possibly be the same though? As has been said before, simpler and faster leads to fewer outcomes and less granularity (things that are a negative for me). That means we're talking about subjectivity, which means there's no universal principle. I don't see it as possible, so the principle doesn't hold up in my view.

 

[Micah Sweet]

that is what the if at the beginning of the sentence is for.

You can obviously lose detail in your pursuit of simplicity and speed. At what point detail you care about gets lost will vary

Right, which is why the whole thing is subjective. If the principle doesn't work in practice to a degree I can appreciate, I can't see the value in it.