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

[Thomas Shey]

Ok, if I have you wrong, how do you see the GM/Player relationship?

Nope. Not dragging that into this thread too. I've explained it in the past, if you got that as a takeaway by now, I have no reason to think repeating it is going to change that at this point.

 

[Thomas Shey]

About a third of sales is probably bought to be read and never played, and I assume that they are very much aware of that and factor this in, so no, the market is not just DMs that 'serve their players', whatever that even means

I didn't say the GM was "serving the players". I said the game was.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I tend to think of Story Now games (e.g. your PBTA and Apocalypse World and so forth) and games like 4e as the "Modern" era, but I also don't think the "Modern" era is current, I think of it as being in the past, or at least there being something newer than modern which is surely still chugging along.

That's def the english lit degree talking in me, where "Modern" alludes to a specific movement and set of values playing out sometime in the 20th century, with a specific relationship with what came before-- especially since those values tend to be similar, e.g. emphasis on function, minimalism, emphasis on rejecting tradition.

I think we're in a post-modern era, but as with every manifestation of the postmodern in commentary, it's definitionally fraught.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Nope. Not dragging that into this thread too. I've explained it in the past, if you got that as a takeaway by now, I have no reason to think repeating it is going to change that at this point.

Well to be fair I'm not allowed to post in the thread where people are talking about that, those as an enthusiast I am following it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I didn't say the GM was "serving the players". I said the game was.

I hope in your perspective the game is serving the GM as well, otherwise to me it's the same thing.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well to be fair I'm not allowed to post in the thread where people are talking about that, those as an enthusiast I am following it.

Well, okay, that's somewhat fair, but I still don't think dragging that discussion into a second thread is a good idea. It didn't go anywhere useful in the last thread, not seeing as how it'd go better (and probably be even more off topic) in this one.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I hope in your perspective the game is serving the GM as well, otherwise to me it's the same thing.

Well, if its not its at least just as problematic. At the very least a group that is trying to play a game that's only serving some of the participants needs probably should be reasses whether they both want that group composition and that game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, if its not its at least just as problematic. At the very least a group that is trying to play a game that's only serving some of the participants needs probably should be reasses whether they both want that group composition and that game.

Also worth noting that "the players" are not a united block. There's no reason to assume that something the GM wants is against the interests of all the other players

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Just to clarify, as I think I've lost track a bit here: when you say "harder on your players" are you speaking of harder to actually play (as in, greater rules complexity, more player-side effort, etc.) or are you speaking of harder to play successfully (e.g. high character lethality, few-and-far-between in-game rewards, etc.)?

 

[Lanefan]

Again, the GMs job is not to "serve their players" IMO, it is instead to create an environment where everyone can have fun playing the game. That obviously includes the players, but it also includes the GM. Again, I'm getting the impression that you see GMing as a service industry, where the players are employing the GM to run a game for them. That's not my experience, and folks seem to enjoy my games just fine.

There's a balance in there somewhere: the GM isn't necessarily just there to serve the players but at the same time the players aren't there just to serve the GM, which IMO is also a valid concern.