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

[Thomas Shey]

(totally tangential) Where do we get the "ranger has a beast companion" trope from that seems to have become core to the class? Aragorn and the Rangers of the North are hardy survivalist warriors.

That was probably a latter day rolling in some beast master types in with the class. It wasn't in the early version.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Bluntly, most of them? Look at Fenris' post upthread if you want just an example in this thread. I've got at least a dozen I could name I'm pretty confident it would apply to however, and most of them are pretty well known.

Ok, but a discussion of game mechanics doesn't inevitably have to turn to popularity and making money, so I had no reason to assume publishing was your focus. I thought we were talking about rules.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I generally give my money to small companies and independent creators, because they're more likely to prioritize the product over the profit, and I believe that leads to better material.

I have to point out that the three one-man band authors I'm familiar with (the authors, respectively, of Fragged Empire, Wicked Pacts and the Sabre Fantasy and SciFi games) would be exceedly unlikely to design a game to support a GM desires in a that would not be visible to their players. I also think its a categorical error to assume small operators don't care about profit as a group, but even if its not a priority, they absolutely care about what their expected users will get out of it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Ok, but a discussion of game mechanics doesn't inevitably have to turn to popularity and making money, so I had no reason to assume publishing was your focus. I thought we were talking about rules.

Well, to be really blunt, even if you're writing rules for your own purposes, a set of rules that supports what you want but makes things harder on your players without benefiting your players in any way visibly is, as far as I'm concerned, a bad set of rules. So do you really want to argue "Writing rules for your own self interests at the expense of your players is a virtue"? If not, it doesn't matter whether these are even professional rules or not.

 

[aramis erak]

I've got a view on this: it's analytical and genealogical.

Classic D&D is, at its core, a game of puzzle-solving. At the start of the game, the GM has all the information (in the form of the map and the key), and the players have almost none (perhaps some rumours, not all of which they can rely on). Over the course of play, the players acquire more and more of that information - by moving through the dungeon and mapping it, by listening at doors, by using detection/scrying magic, by judiciously opening doors etc. They can then exploit this information to plan and undertake dungeon raids, in the way that Gygax describes in his PHB.

In classic D&D play, the most important categories of action are movement, listening/looking/detecting/scrying, fighting, and talking. Movement only requires mechanical resolution in special cases (eg climbing, perhaps some balancing, etc) and the resolution of that (i) follows common sense (eg unsuccessful climbing can lead to falling) and (ii) has as its more significant consequence that the movement doesn't occur, and hence the PC is not in the place that the player wanted them to be such that they could do whatever the thing is that the player wanted them to do (eg open a door).

from my point of view, as a frequent user of maps and tokens in D&D since 1981... Movement is the single most mechanical of those. It's specified by the combination of race and encumbrance... counting the squares is mechanics in action. And I played and GM'd in "combat mode until it's clear no combat is happening" per Gygaxian advice for years...

You're notable for your emphasis on story, but as a playstyle issue, movement swaps between least and most frequent mechanical resolution.

Using the optional distances in Daggerheart, my players are prone to counting squares in Foundry.

All of which is mechanical imposition on the story...

... one which I'm OK with.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I have to point out that the three one-man band authors I'm familiar with (the authors, respectively, of Fragged Empire, Wicked Pacts and the Sabre Fantasy and SciFi games) would be exceedly unlikely to design a game to support a GM desires in a that would not be visible to their players. I also think its a categorical error to assume small operators don't care about profit as a group, but even if its not a priority, they absolutely care about what their expected users will get out of it.

GMs are very much an expected user, and as a bonus also the people most likely to give them money.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, to be really blunt, even if you're writing rules for your own purposes, a set of rules that supports what you want but makes things harder on your players without benefiting your players in any way visibly is, as far as I'm concerned, a bad set of rules. So do you really want to argue "Writing rules for your own self interests at the expense of your players is a virtue"? If not, it doesn't matter whether these are even professional rules or not.

Sim rules often make things harder on the PCs, especially if you're looking at it from a 2026 "modern" perspective. It's not going to be the most popular route. Doesn't mean there's no value to it, or that no one would buy it so why bother. Challenge, threat, realism and/or verisimilitude, exploring a consistent logical world that doesn't feel like it exists just for you and your amusement, and, yes, a little more complexity for those varied outcomes and increased granularity, are worthwhile things for some gamers, even players. I know I would jump at the chance to play a PC in such a game, and I wouldn't feel those rules are "at my expense". The idea that they would be is your bias IMO.

 

[Fenris-77]

Ok, but focus too much on what the most people will pay you for and you get WotC, so I'm strongly inclined to lean more on the side of bespoke subsystems and more niche interests. I honestly think you get better games that way, and better games should be a priority IMO over more profit once you hit the place that covers your financial needs for the project in question. If money was the most important thing it's likely you would be in some other industry (again, unless you're a high-up in WotC).

I think this is really easy to say when you aren't actually paying for your groceries with money from RPG sales.

 

[Fenris-77]

(totally tangential) Where do we get the "ranger has a beast companion" trope from that seems to have become core to the class? Aragorn and the Rangers of the North are hardy survivalist warriors.

The first thing that springs to mind is Drizzt Do'Urden and his panther, but that's probably not it. Let me ask Mr. Google ... Mr. Google says it's been a thing since 3.5 (2003) so my guess might actually be correct.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think this is really easy to say when you aren't actually paying for your groceries with money from RPG sales.

No doubt. I don't have a full time job making RPGs, and I would never expect to make a living off it, just a little extra cash at best. If I did somehow end up in an RPG job (and had any real control over the creative end), I would certainly care about making something people want to buy, but even if it was my only source of income I wouldn't put profit first, once my actual needs are met. But then, I'm not a salesman or a business executive, and don't really understand or like that world. I just like to make, read and play games I think are fun. Hopefully others do too.