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

[TwoSix]

Yeah, more of a Game Moderator than Game Master.

This. I'm always looking for systems that relieve me of as much of the "master" burden as possible. I don't want to make a bunch of adjudication calls; I want the game engine to decide the results as much as possible! I want my focus to be on presenting cool challenges and interesting NPCs, not on being the "referee".

 

[zakael19]

This. I'm always looking for systems that relieve me of as much of the "master" burden as possible. I don't want to make a bunch of adjudication calls; I want the game engine to decide the results as much as possible! I want my focus to be on presenting cool challenges and interesting NPCs, not on being the "referee".

I was getting so burnt out on classic high-prep GMing, discovering there was a whole world of “sit down at the table and collaborate together to make something amazing as a group” was the biggest relief.

I’m a constant GM for a bunch of folks because I love doing the variety of stuff it calls for at the table, and those folks keep asking me to run more games so I guess I do a good job. Works out for all of us.

 

[Fenris-77]

This. I'm always looking for systems that relieve me of as much of the "master" burden as possible. I don't want to make a bunch of adjudication calls; I want the game engine to decide the results as much as possible! I want my focus to be on presenting cool challenges and interesting NPCs, not on being the "referee".

Well, to some extent you can't escape being the referee when one of your core tasks is to adjudicate player actions, but I know what you mean.

 

[billd91]

I mean, since we're in "dueling anecdotes" territory, that's not how my games work at all. I have one friends-and-family table I'm the
"forever GM" for, but my wife and several other participants handle the scheduling. If I'm lucky, I get reminded I'm GMing the morning of.

Our other tables all play at one guy's house, but scheduling is a communal effort, and the guy is just one GM among many.

The idea of a group being primarily driven by one person's interests is just totally antithetical to my experiences.

And, yet, it's also a pretty common setup. It's definitely convenient to play at a GM's house since they can set up ahead of time and have ready access to any sources they have without having to lug as much with them. And that may then also mean they have refreshments on hand and have to clean up afterwards.

Of the groups I've been in over the last 20 years, the GM's house has been the site of the game more often than not, though we've also gone with the variant of playing at the home of the players with the youngest children because they need to also supervise their kids. And there are times, before we had kids, where we played at the home of whomever had the biggest table.

That said, in none of those situations would I consider the game primarily driven by one person's interests. The GM may have proposed the game and the players taken up the proposal and may even have played host, but even in those situations that's not "driven by one person's interests".

 

[TwoSix]

Well, to some extent you can't escape being the referee when one of your core tasks is to adjudicate player actions, but I know what you mean.

Sure. Weird edge cases are always gonna happen. But I don't want the core gameplay loop to be me constantly making decisions on if the player's action worked or not.

 

[Fenris-77]

Sure. Weird edge cases are always gonna happen. But I don't want the core gameplay loop to be me constantly making decisions on if the player's action worked or not.

That's not what I meant. The mechanics should be deciding if something worked or not (assuming that the mechanics were required). But in either case the diegetic frame changes based on that player action and it's the GMs job to communicate the success and fail state along with whatever changes accrue. Regardless the exact word we use there is constant call for the GM to interpret results and feed them back into the machine of the conversation.

 

[TwoSix]

And, yet, it's also a pretty common setup. It's definitely convenient to play at a GM's house since they can set up ahead of time and have ready access to any sources they have without having to lug as much with them. And that may then also mean they have refreshments on hand and have to clean up afterwards.

Of the groups I've been in over the last 20 years, the GM's house has been the site of the game more often than not, though we've also gone with the variant of playing at the home of the players with the youngest children because they need to also supervise their kids. And there are times, before we had kids, where we played at the home of whomever had the biggest table.

That said, in none of those situations would I consider the game primarily driven by one person's interests. The GM may have proposed the game and the players taken up the proposal and may even have played host, but even in those situations that's not "driven by one person's interests".

Sure. And it definitely seems like our group setups have more in common with each other than they differ; we both seem to have situations where the "group" is the central relationship and the hosting situations migrates to whichever location is the most convenient or comfortable.

This seems different, to me, than the situation @Lanefan presented in which the GM also functions as social organizer and host; the GM and their play space is the central nexus from which various players come and go over time, and the GM (and group) vet new people to see if they're a fit for that social construction.

Obviously, there's no strict divisions here, but I do think a game organized around a GM looking for players for their concept functions differently from a group of friendly gamers deciding what's the next game to play and who's going to "run it".

 

[TwoSix]

That's not what I meant. The mechanics should be deciding if something worked or not (assuming that the mechanics were required). But in either case the diegetic frame changes based on that player action and it's the GMs job to communicate the success and fail state along with whatever changes accrue. Regardless the exact word we use there is constant call for the GM to interpret results and feed them back into the machine of the conversation.

Well, yea, that's just game play. But I differentiate between me "making a decision" (specifically, me deciding if an attempt actually passes/fails) and me "narrating the next scene".

 

[Fenris-77]

Well, yea, that's just game play. But I differentiate between me "making a decision" (specifically, me deciding if an attempt actually passes/fails) and me "narrating the next scene".

Huh. See, as far as I understand how RPG play works those are the same picture. The pass/fail is the input and the changed diegetic state is the output. How you feel about that doesn't really come into it.

Now, if this is describing an actual scene change (so on to a new encounter, to use different words) you'd be more correct. But in terms of the conversation that governs moment to moment RPG play I think you are missing the point.

It's also possible that I have completely misunderstood you too, so please let me know if that's the case.

 

[Umbran]

That's not what I meant. The mechanics should be deciding if something worked or not (assuming that the mechanics were required). But in either case the diegetic frame changes based on that player action and it's the GMs job to communicate the success and fail state along with whatever changes accrue. Regardless the exact word we use there is constant call for the GM to interpret results and feed them back into the machine of the conversation.

So, think this highlights different tasks the GM may need to engage in.

"Adjudicating" is about determining how the player's declared actions interact with the rules - determining if what they are trying can work at all, what the difficulty is, and so on.

"Interpreting results" - is about the narrative change as a result of the attempt.