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

[soviet]

Can you please give me an example where more simplicity doesn't lead to fewer mechanical outcomes and/or less granularity?

And please provide evidence that simplicity in and of itself is a reasonable goal, but complexity never is. Also, your "sweet spot" is obviously another way of saying it's subjective, so the simplicity is always better principle still doesn't apply.

I think the switch to acending AC probably qualifies here. It's undoubtedly simpler to operate and it doesn't sacrifice any granularity of mechanical outcomes.

I don't say that it is 100% better, I get that there's a certain nostalgia to low AC = better, and also it communicates something about the scale of different ACs that 'high numbers are better' doesn't. But overall I think it's clearly better.

 

[mamba]

Can you please give me an example where more simplicity doesn't lead to fewer mechanical outcomes and/or less granularity?

that gets into the weeds and I am not that familiar with enough systems to say this one uses a mechanic that is basically the same as in another but simplified. Someone mentioned ascending armor class, which is clearly not changing granularity at all and generally considered (slightly) simpler

And please provide evidence that simplicity in and of itself is a reasonable goal, but complexity never is.

that should be self-evident. If you can accomplish your goal with a simple approach, a more complex one does not provide benefits but is detrimental.

You can always add complexity that does not accomplish anything additional, yet we basically never do.

“Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.”

Also, your "sweet spot" is obviously another way of saying it's subjective, so the simplicity is always better principle still doesn't apply.

yes, that obviously is subjective, I did not claim otherwise

 

[Umbran]

(perhaps so you could manufacture a straw man, I don't know)

Don't you ever complain about anyone misconstrued you again.

 

[Aldarc]

Modern is not necessarily better. Modern is not necessarily better. Modern is not necessarily better. So we are reminded ad nauseum. Modern mechanics, regardless of whether they originate in older games, seem required to justify their existence or any claims that they are better. And yet I have sometimes likewise noticed that this does not seem to apply to older mechanics and their fans. What makes older better? Why aren't fans of older mechanics required to justify that that their mechanics are better than new mechanics? Should fans of older mechanics be constantly browbeaten and reminded of the banal point that older is not necessarily better? What point does constantly raising this banal point actually serve any discussion? What is the actual argument or desire that lies behind constantly raising this point? Reading through this thread again, I just don't know, but I do know that I am tired of hearing "Modern is not necessarily better" for the umpteenth time as if it adds anything new or valuable to discussion.

 

[Fenris-77]

IDK, I think that any mechanic can be analyzed and assessed as to its effectiveness set next to playstyle A or play expectation B. Binaries are often less than helpful in a lot of ways.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

You can at least have a situation where the more complicated version is complicated for reasons that are pretty pointless at the player end. I've argued against simplicity and speed for their own sakes because there are two things that tend to get lost in that: 1. Ability of players to engage with the resolution in a way that has non-subjective decision-making, and 2. Detail in output is, again, limited in any way that is not fundamentally arbitrary (i.e. the GM or player just decides on it).

But you can also have complication that's about non-player input (i.e. the GM is factoring a whole bunch of bits and bobs into the resolution, but the players have little or no interaction with those bits) and the resolution process has no real exterior input. I know that might still matter to you because of your simulation bias, but at that point it really matters only to the GM because only the GM really sees it or has any input to it.

In those cases even to players who care about input and output aren't going to care if there's simplification, because the complexity wasn't actually doing anything meaningful in the first place to them.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think the switch to acending AC probably qualifies here. It's undoubtedly simpler to operate and it doesn't sacrifice any granularity of mechanical outcomes.

I don't say that it is 100% better, I get that there's a certain nostalgia to low AC = better, and also it communicates something about the scale of different ACs that 'high numbers are better' doesn't. But overall I think it's clearly better.

You are welcome to think so, but from my perspective the difference is negligible, as I suggested above. And it's the best example I've seen.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Don't you ever complain about anyone misconstrued you again.

What exactly does that mean? Feels a little personal, more so than what I said, which suggested a possible motivation rather than flat-out put it out there.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You can at least have a situation where the more complicated version is complicated for reasons that are pretty pointless at the player end. I've argued against simplicity and speed for their own sakes because there are two things that tend to get lost in that: 1. Ability of players to engage with the resolution in a way that has non-subjective decision-making, and 2. Detail in output is, again, limited in any way that is not fundamentally arbitrary (i.e. the GM or player just decides on it).

But you can also have complication that's about non-player input (i.e. the GM is factoring a whole bunch of bits and bobs into the resolution, but the players have little or no interaction with those bits) and the resolution process has no real exterior input. I know that might still matter to you because of your simulation bias, but at that point it really matters only to the GM because only the GM really sees it or has any input to it.

In those cases even to players who care about input and output aren't going to care if there's simplification, because the complexity wasn't actually doing anything meaningful in the first place to them.

You're right, but even if it doesn't matter to the players, if it matters to the GM it's still subjective (and remember the GM is a player too and deserves at least as much consideration for what they enjoy).

 

[Thomas Shey]

You're right, but even if it doesn't matter to the players, if it matters to the GM it's still subjective (and remember the GM is a player too and deserves at least as much consideration for what they enjoy).

I've made my position on this clear; a game that serves the interests of a GM at the price of making extra overhead for the players constantly is not serving itself very well, and even the number of GMs that is going to appreciate the dynamic I discussed isn't large. If you want to argue "It makes sense to make a game design that serves a small number of GMs and essentially no players is a good idea" you can do that, but I can't follow you there.