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

[Fenris-77]

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.

I think you're making a lot of claims about what designers do that sound (although I doubt you mean it to) very judgmental. People should design what they want to design - that's more than enough guideline. If it's new and interesting or if it's for a venerable and popular system I don't think anyone needs to sit in judgement of people's creative efforts.

 

[Deset Gled]

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.

Rangers could use charm abilities to gain pets in Everquest (1999), but EQ poached a ton of it's class lore from other sources, so I assume there's an example from a 2e kit that predates that.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Not sure about turning undead but I can think of one rather famous example of a prophet-like (i.e. Cleric-like, in the days before heavy armour was a thing) person busting out some healing magic now and then.

The book about him is the most-published work of all time.....

There might be power set similiarities, but also stark differences - because that book doesn't describe the guy getting into armed fights a lot (armor or no armor, he isn't beating people with bludgeoning instruments!), and dealing with dungeons or dragons. I don't think he canonically hurt anyone physically, or ask and support others hurting someone physically. Kinda the opposite, really, which requires a very different game from D&D to make a game from.

What did pemerton write:
"Inspired by X, but then they make it weird by them going into dungeons and stealing stuff."

 

[pemerton]

The first thing that springs to mind is Drizzt Do'Urden and his panther

That was going to be my answer.

My understanding (from hearsay - I've never read a Drizzt novel) is that Drizzt fought with two weapons because that was a Drow ability; and had a Figurine of Wondrous Power.

But then these got turned into ranger abilities.

Although there is a (modest) overlap between (i) the animal companion of the more modern rangers and (ii) the animal followers an AD&D ranger could receive at 10th level.

 

[pemerton]

There might be power set similiarities, but also stark differences - because that book doesn't describe the guy getting into armed fights a lot (armor or no armor, he isn't beating people with bludgeoning instruments!), and dealing with dungeons or dragons. I don't think he canonically hurt anyone physically, or ask and support others hurting someone physically. Kinda the opposite, really, which requires a very different game from D&D to make a game from.

Right. The archetype that clerics and paladins draw from is the mediaeval idea of the rightful knight/king who can heal with a touch, and perhaps perform other miracles; and is wrathful and warlike against the enemies of the divinity. D&D obviously sources some of the miracles from the Bible (eg sticks to snakes, insect plague, lowering and parting water, etc) but the characters themselves don't really have Biblical resonance. They draw on mediaeval ideals.

 

[zakael19]

Yeah, some digging suggests that as you note there was a companion before Drizzit and his figurine; and "we don't know for sure" unlike some clearer tropes.

Right. The archetype that clerics and paladins draw from is the mediaeval idea of the rightful knight/king who can heal with a touch, and perhaps perform other miracles; and is wrathful and warlike against the enemies of the divinity. D&D obviously sources some of the miracles from the Bible (eg sticks to snakes, insect plague, lowering and parting water, etc) but the characters themselves don't really have Biblical resonance. They draw on mediaeval ideals.

It's also probably drawing from like, actual militant saints? We've got plenty of saints who were soldiers in life and venerated for their prowess, that were then said to have performed (or called upon for intercession with) miracles that fall right in line with core Cleric abilities. Considering that we have at least one Saint just straight up show up as a Diety in early D&D, the awareness of those tropes were there.

Paladin I think is far more in line with what you said.

 

[pemerton]

It's also probably drawing from like, actual militant saints? We've got plenty of saints who were soldiers in life and venerated for their prowess, that were then said to have performed (or called upon for intercession with) miracles that fall right in line with core Cleric abilities. Considering that we have at least one Saint just straight up show up as a Diety in early D&D, the awareness of those tropes were there.

Paladin I think is far more in line with what you said.

I think the militant saints and the miracle-working knights/kings are all pretty closely tied together, particularly when filtered through the lens of game design many centuries later than the culture that conceived of them. So I agree with you about how they tie into Clerics; but see the difference between Clerics and Paladins (in classic D&D) as mechanical but not archetypical. Only in 4e D&D do I see an archetypical difference really being drawn: Clerics can be STR or WIS, and Paladins can be STR or CHA. A STR Cleric and STR Paladin are pretty similar archetypes with different mechanics; but a CHA paladin is interestingly different. In my mind, a STR Paladin is Lancelot; a CHA Paladin is Galahad.

Yeah, some digging suggests that as you note there was a companion before Drizzit and his figurine; and "we don't know for sure" unlike some clearer tropes.

The 10th level Ranger in my first long-running AD&D campaign had 4 companions: a fighter, a druid, a brown bear, and a copper dragon.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sim rules often make things harder on the PCs, especially if you're looking at it from a 2026 "modern" perspective.

I didn't say the PCs. I said the players. If the players are having a problem with how hard things are for their PCs (especially as a group), there's something either wrong with the rules you're using or the group you're playing with (i.e. you and they are out of sync).

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.

Note that when I started with this, I explicitly was talking about games that don't have either wider range of output, nor additional meaningful input at the player level that they can actually utilize. In fact...

"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."

See the difference between that and what you just said?

 

[Thomas Shey]

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

GMs and players are expected users, and GMs may buy more games than player, but the number who do that who are not serving their players well are, I'm willing to bet, not a big part of their market.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I didn't say the PCs. I said the players. If the players are having a problem with how hard things are for their PCs (especially as a group), there's something either wrong with the rules you're using or the group you're playing with (i.e. you and they are out of sync).



Note that when I started with this, I explicitly was talking about games that don't have either wider range of output, nor additional meaningful input at the player level that they can actually utilize. In fact...

"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."

See the difference between that and what you just said?

You seem to think the players are more important than the GM, so their desires should be prioritized. A lot of people seem to feel this way (I've met many on this board who seem to resent the existence of a GM with desires for their game are not completely shared by the players), but that doesn't make it a better way to game. When you say, "it really only matters to the GM" I read that as, "and who cares what they want? Their job is to service player desires".

You're right. I do have a sim bias, and any game I run is going to have one too, to one degree or another, because that is how I enjoy the hobby most. When I play, I prefer games that I can play through a sim lens as well, though I will abide by the style of the GM if I want to stay in the campaign. I won't apologize or be ashamed of any of that.