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

[Maxperson]

Though you have to follow-through. As someone upthread indirectly references, its actually a bit odd that there's not much I've seen over the years that can damage spellslots other than indirectly by lifedrain back in the day. You'd expect there to be at least a few.

The Spellthief in in 3e that could steal spells along with the slot to cast that spell. I can't remember specifically, but I'm pretty sure that there were other ways to lose slots.

 

[Lanefan]

The DM knows which way the group is going. Why hasn't he rolled that stuff during prep?

Must be nice....

 

[Micah Sweet]

Must be nice....

The idea is that you discuss with your players at the end of the session, so you have a good idea of where they plan to go. Most players in my experience aren't constantly shooting off in random, unpredictable directions at the beginning of every session, leaving me scrambling to keep up. Do yours do that?

 

[Umbran]

If force points are a meta-currency because they don't say force points in the setting, then hit points also fall into that category and have been around a lot longer.

Hit points are pretty meta - they are more about playing a game than being in the setting- so, yeah, I am okay with that.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Hit points are pretty meta - they are more about playing a game than being in the setting- so, yeah, I am okay with that.

They've always struck me as a pacing mechanism serving primarily game and story purposes; game to give players time to figure out a combat is going badly before it gets there, story to produce the sort of back-and-forth you see in some fiction.

 

[Deset Gled]

If force points are a meta-currency because they don't say force points in the setting, then hit points also fall into that category and have been around a lot longer.

I wouldn't consider hit points a currency, at least not in the same sense we use the term meta-currency. You can't "spend" a hit point to get some benefit or in-game effect. And the GM doesn't grant or take them away; you only lose or gain them in response to in-game actions. IMX, at least.

 

[Maxperson]

I wouldn't consider hit points a currency, at least not in the same sense we use the term meta-currency. You can't "spend" a hit point to get some benefit or in-game effect. And the GM doesn't grant or take them away; you only lose or gain them in response to in-game actions. IMX, at least.

At least in some editions you could spend them to fuel spells/abilities for some classes or prestige classes. Blood magic. Also, hit dice are a currency that PCs can spend in 5e to get hit points.

 

[Deset Gled]

At least in some editions you could spend them to fuel spells/abilities for some classes or prestige classes. Blood magic. Also, hit dice are a currency that PCs can spend in 5e to get hit points.

In the case of 5e, hit dice are the currency, not hit points.

Harder to address the Blood Magic without specifics, but I'm guessing the answer will be similar. Class abilities or magic points/slots/whatever are the currency. In any case, that would be a very specific exception, not the norm.

 

[Maxperson]

In the case of 5e, hit dice are the currency, not hit points.

Harder to address the Blood Magic without specifics, but I'm guessing the answer will be similar. Class abilities or magic points/slots/whatever are the currency. In any case, that would be a very specific exception, not the norm.

The Blood Magus can inflict 1 point of damage to himself with a cut and use that blood to take the place of cheap components. They can permanently sacrifice 1 hit point in the process of creating a homonculus. For 3 hit points of damage he can do an extra d6 damage with a spell to all targets that have blood.

 

[Scott Christian]

This came up in another thread and I wanted to spin it off for its own discussion.

When talking about TTRPG mechanics and how the medium has evolved and advanced over the last 5 decades, are there specific sorts of mechanics that you consider more "modern" than others?

Where do you draw the line at "modern"? Is it arbitrarily some year or the advent of some game? Or is there a qualitative to "modern" that transcends a clear line?

And with the dicsussion of "modern" -- are there games with mechanics ahead of their time? Are there "regressive" games now?

Finally, does it matter to you whether a game has more "modern" mechanics, for good or ill?

I really think of feel, and since all rulesets evolve in increments, and then often make larger jumps during edition changes, I think it is hard to say. But as far as feel, it seems when death became rarer and rarer, with rules that specifically prevented it, that seems like a modern take. I would also say 4th edition D&D felt very modern for the time. In part because it followed more of a computer style combat (Dailies, Encounters, etc.). The last piece I would point out is the length of adventures. That feels very modern to me. Having an adventure take over a year seems newish, at least to me.