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

[Neonchameleon]

Design and prep by the GM? I think that might be true of some games, but certainly not all. Any argument that says prep is more important than players, or more important than play at the table is completely missing the point. A conception of what RPG play is or does that begins with 'my job is the most important job' is a wank.

Absolutely. The game is what happens at the table with all the players (minus holidays, illness, etc.). Design and prep is strictly a support function.

And if design & prep is really your thing this is the wrong hobby. Make a video game (in the broader sense including e.g. Skyrim mods). It will last longer, can be shared with and enjoyed by many more, lets you include fiddly details to your heart's content, and looks better.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Design and prep by the GM? I think that might be true of some games, but certainly not all. Any argument that says prep is more important than players, or more important than play at the table is completely missing the point. A conception of what RPG play is or does that begins with 'my job is the most important job' is a wank.

I understand your point, I just don't agree. Run a traditional game without a GM and then tell me the GM and what they do, at the table and away from in, aren't vital for play. I enjoy prepping for, designing, and reading RPGs more than I do running or playing them (though I do enjoy those as well). If I could only play, or run some improv-only game, and not engage with the material away from the table, I likely would have given up the hobby altogether. So yes, for me, prep, design and reading pleasure are more valuable than play. Judge me if you wish.

 

[pemerton]

if design & prep is really your thing this is the wrong hobby. Make a video game (in the broader sense including e.g. Skyrim mods). It will last longer, can be shared with and enjoyed by many more, lets you include fiddly details to your heart's content, and looks better.

I think it's not just "design and prep" being the thing.

There's also something about the experience of leading others through it: of putting it on display. And RPGing permits this in a way that is different from something like a video game mod.

This also goes back to the "priority" point that prompted @Fenris-77's posts to which both you and I replied. If the GM is a type of "tour guide" to a "world" to which they have uniquely privileged access, then of necessity the GM is, in a sense, "higher".

I personally don't think this is a very effective approach to RPGing, as in my view it undercuts the strength of the medium, which is shared imagination. But it is a real phenomenon in RPGing culture. I think the most sympathetic account of it that I have read, that tries to capture the aesthetic value of GM-led prep-heavy RPGing, is this from Eero Tuovinen: Observations on GNS Simulationism – Correspondence is about Diligence

 

[Fenris-77]

I understand your point, I just don't agree. Run a traditional game without a GM and then tell me the GM and what they do, at the table and away from in, aren't vital for play. I enjoy prepping for, designing, and reading RPGs more than I do running or playing them (though I do enjoy those as well). If I could only play, or run some improv-only game, and not engage with the material away from the table, I likely would have given up the hobby altogether. So yes, for me, prep, design and reading pleasure are more valuable than play. Judge me if you wish.

This argument is silly. You can't run a game without players either, and the fact that there is usually more than one player isn't the place to hang that argument. You're also selling this as some kind of binary with your preferred high prep on one side and no-prep on the other - this simply isn't a realistic picture. Lots of games require less prep than the sort of game you like, but vanishingly few of them require no prep. The GM is almost always engaged in world building and design and that is a big reason why a lot of GMs like to be GMs (just like you). I like world building and design too, FWIW. So some people chose to be GMs because they like the set of tasks that come along with it, and in almost every game that set of tasks is indeed more work than what falls on any individual player.

The difference between us is what we have to say about that work. I say GMs pick their role because to some extent they enjoy that work. You want to up the stakes make that set of tasks 'more important'. My reply is that 'importance' is a pretty useless way to talk about RPG play. I'm not suggesting that the prep load required for your chosen style of RPG play isn't intense, or that it's not important, only that judging the importance of roles at the table doesn't help us define or explain or analyze or deconstruct RPG play in order to understand it better or explain how it works.

I'm going to grab some straw and construct a dude here to deflect the inevitable "but I only GM because no one else wants to" digression. That is, sadly, probably true of some GMs, but it's also completely unhelpful in an analysis of RPG play. A discussion of the forever GM and the usual companion piece about entitled players is a whole different topic than the one at hand.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I personally don't think this is a very effective approach to RPGing, as in my view it undercuts the strength of the medium, which is shared imagination. But it is a real phenomenon in RPGing culture. I think the most sympathetic account of it that I have read, that tries to capture the aesthetic value of GM-led prep-heavy RPGing, is this from Eero Tuovinen: Observations on GNS Simulationism – Correspondence is about Diligence

I think that it is a real phenomenon but also a fading one precisely because making video games and mods scratches that itch far better than making RPG settings. I don't think it was that uncommon among GMs in the 70s and 80s but I would be incredibly surprised to see it in one under 30

 

[Fenris-77]

I personally don't think this is a very effective approach to RPGing, as in my view it undercuts the strength of the medium, which is shared imagination. But it is a real phenomenon in RPGing culture. I think the most sympathetic account of it that I have read, that tries to capture the aesthetic value of GM-led prep-heavy RPGing, is this from Eero Tuovinen: Observations on GNS Simulationism – Correspondence is about Diligence

I think to be fair I'm going to take some light issue with this. Lots of people play games that might be described this way and find it entirely effective and rewarding. I know you were speaking personally, but I think we'd be best to avoid on all sides our personal preferences to some extent. There's not a thing wrong with the heavy prep approach if everyone involved is enjoying themselves.

Problems arise when someone takes their preferred style of play and makes it central to a discussion of how RPGs generally work or should be played. Trying to occupy the center is always going to be counter to a useful discussion of difference.

 

[Fenris-77]

I think that it is a real phenomenon but also a fading one precisely because making video games and mods scratches that itch far better than making RPG settings. I don't think it was that uncommon among GMs in the 70s and 80s but I would be incredibly surprised to see it in one under 30

IDK, I'm pretty sure that this very thing is what is driving the ongoing explosion of self-published RPG material on DTRPG and Itch (for both good and ill).

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm going to grab some straw and construct a dude here to deflect the inevitable "but I only GM because no one else wants to" digression. That is, sadly, probably true of some GMs, but it's also completely unhelpful in an analysis or RPG play. A discussion of the forever GM and the usual companion piece about entitled players is a whole different topic than the one at hand.

And if "I only GM because no one else wants to" that reflects either selfishness or failure. Selfishness because you are either through accident or design hoarding all the fun GMing, or failure to develop other people as GMs.

It is however easier to develop GMs in systems where the GM is not weighed down by minutae.

 

[Fenris-77]

And if "I only GM because no one else wants to" that reflects either selfishness or failure. Selfishness because you are either through accident or design hoarding all the fun GMing, or failure to develop other people as GMs.

It is however easier to develop GMs in systems where the GM is not weighed down by minutae.

Hmm. I agree to some extent, but I disagree that there is some kind of responsibility that devolves on individual GMs to develop other GMs. Encourage? Positively model? Sure and sure. But I'd stop short of blaming the current GM too. I think the responsibility there devolves on designers and systems to make GMing a more attractive prospect, and I think this is one place where more 'modern' systems do a much better job than classic D&D and the equivalent games.

 

[Neonchameleon]

IDK, I'm pretty sure that this very thing is what is driving the ongoing explosion of self-published RPG material on DTRPG and Itch (for both good and ill).

This isn't quite a contradiction. Publishing is something you do instead of playing at the tabletop - and game design isn't world building.

Hmm. I agree to some extent, but I disagree that there is some kind of responsibility that devolves on individual GMs to develop other GMs. Encourage? Positively model? Sure and sure. But I'd stop short of blaming the current GM too. I think the responsibility there devolves on designers and systems to make GMing a more attractive prospect, and I think this is one place where more 'modern' systems do a much better job than classic D&D and the equivalent games.

Here I'd say responsibility isn't sole responsibility. The group, the game, and the current GM all have varying amounts of responsibility - and the responsibility any GM has shoots way up when they start complaining about a problem that they are the second best placed person to fix (behind only someone complaining but not stepping up).

I'd also say that a driver for the OSR is that Gygaxian D&D does a pretty good job (and far better than any subsequent D&D except 4e) of making GMing attractive