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

[Fenris-77]

I can't see the post you are responding to so apologies if I'm missing something. I've been increasingly feeling over the past year or so that narrative and trad games are entirely different games, though.

That's subjective and qualitative and so could be argued about forever. So all I'll say is that there does seem to me to be such a large qualitative difference that people who like one very commonly do not like the other because it breaks core assumptions about what gameplay is and what they want it to achieve.

That seems sufficient to me to draw a hard boundary rather than a soft one. Even if they may both be RPGs, in the way soccer and baseball are both sports.

Well, my point was that what they have in common is the conversation, shared diegetic space, and to add an item, avatars through which the players frame their end of the conversation and their imagination of exploring the setting. That's all fall more fundamental to RPG play than what we are here calling playstyle.

I think your hard lines project will fall well short of satisfaction once it encounters the whole plethora of games that combine elements of the two. This is why I said that the term narrative, for example, is probably more useful to describe various aspects of a given game than it is the game itself. I think the question might be better put 'how narrative is game X' as opposed to 'is game X narrative'. The former provides a whole lot of useful discussion space, while the latter almost immediately runs into problems.

 

[zakael19]

Tbf, most casual use has it as a shorthand of games whose core mechanical conceits and framework of principles hew relatively close to most of the design elements of AW. 2d6, playbooks, moves, explicit "what we play to find out" writ large, GM and Player Agendas, etc.

It's when you abstract "PBTA" back to "options for a structured conversation" that you get Murderous Ghosts / MF0: Firebrands / super interesting descendants like Wanderhome. Those are far less conventional "RPGs" than AW.

Replying to myself here to quote Baker’s take on this which I know a lot of AW old hats don’t like much:

“
PbtA represents an approach to RPG design as broad as any of these [D&D, GURPS, Forge]. Choose two given PbtA games, and you shouldn’t expect them to be any more similar than two point-buy games or two Forge games.

PbtA isn’t a system you can adapt to different genres, like GURPS, d20, Fate, One-Roll Engine. It’s an approach, a framework, a vocabulary for designing new systems that work how you want them to work.”

 

[zakael19]

Well, my point was that what they have in common is the conversation, shared diegetic space, and to add an item, avatars through which the players frame their end of the conversation and their imagination of exploring the setting. That's all fall more fundamental to RPG play than what we are here calling playstyle.

I think your hard lines project will fall well short of satisfaction once it encounters the whole plethora of games that combine elements of the two. This is why I said that the term narrative, for example, is probably more useful to describe various aspects of a given game than it is the game itself. I think the question might be better put 'how narrative is game X' as opposed to 'is game X narrative'. The former provides a whole lot of useful discussion space, while the latter almost immediately runs into problems.

Oh that’s a good way of putting it. I’d also say “how openly collaborative is X” because like, Burning Wheel isn’t from what I can see; AW is probably intended to be.

But then you get to BITD and it’s “ask questions” with a whole list of idle things to ask players to build the situation and world together (and then The Gauntlet and its techniques etc).

 

[Fenris-77]

Oh that’s a good way of putting it. I’d also say “how openly collaborative is X” because like, Burning Wheel isn’t from what I can see; AW is probably intended to be.

But then you get to BITD and it’s “ask questions” with a whole list of idle things to ask players to build the situation and world together (and then The Gauntlet and its techniques etc).

And to go a layer deeper there are all kinds of interconnections between and beneath that typology. Designers don't always colour inside the lines but use the tools at hand to build the game they want. Most of these descriptors (PbtA, OSR, BItD, Forge, etc) run into this exact problem.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, my point was that what they have in common is the conversation, shared diegetic space, and to add an item, avatars through which the players frame their end of the conversation and their imagination of exploring the setting. That's all fall more fundamental to RPG play than what we are here calling playstyle.

I think your hard lines project will fall well short of satisfaction once it encounters the whole plethora of games that combine elements of the two. This is why I said that the term narrative, for example, is probably more useful to describe various aspects of a given game than it is the game itself. I think the question might be better put 'how narrative is game X' as opposed to 'is game X narrative'. The former provides a whole lot of useful discussion space, while the latter almost immediately runs into problems.

I'm not sure how much the similarities matter if the differences matter to an individual more. Which is more "fundamental" is irrelevant if what's different keeps me from enjoying the game. Games that push the narrative aspects of play overly are less fun for me, so it's a useful term for categorizing different games, even if there are real differences between them in other ways.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And to go a layer deeper there are all kinds of interconnections between and beneath that typology. Designers don't always colour inside the lines but use the tools at hand to build the game they want. Most of these descriptors (PbtA, OSR, BItD, Forge, etc) run into this exact problem.

The tools at hand keep expanding as new tools are developed, but that doesn't mean they all play nice with each other, or that any tool is better or worse in an objective sense.

 

[The Firebird]

I think that Daggerheart shows its a lot more fungible then that. Mostly, it's a question of degrees of authority imo. Which is why I think that some degree of collaborative narrative play is a feature of modern games.

I think your hard lines project will fall well short of satisfaction once it encounters the whole plethora of games that combine elements of the two. This is why I said that the term narrative, for example, is probably more useful to describe various aspects of a given game than it is the game itself. I think the question might be better put 'how narrative is game X' as opposed to 'is game X narrative'. The former provides a whole lot of useful discussion space, while the latter almost immediately runs into problems.

I guess these are probing the same thing--if there is a game that is midway between two endmembers, then those endmembers are the same type of game. I don't think that holds. Colors are an easy example--you vary continuously but blue and red are different. With respect to games, perhaps frisbee golf illustrates the same.

My idea isn't that either type of game is not an rpg, but that within the space of RPGs "narrative" vs "trad" is going to be as meaningful as "is this a RPG or not"? (For me, it is more meaningful).

RPGs are also hard to categorize because each table is a game of its own--you can play trad mechanics in a narrative way.

Anyway the deeper I get into RPGs the more I feel there are unbridgeable divides between play styles and the difference is worth noting. I agree with Fenris that "how narrative is a game" is more useful than "is a game narrative"--with the caveat that if narrative is above a certain threshold I won't enjoy it.

 

[Fenris-77]

The tools at hand keep expanding as new tools are developed, but that doesn't mean they all play nice with each other, or that any tool is better or worse in an objective sense.

Good heavens no, they certainly do not. As for 'objective', I think that's more a word to apply in individual cases where it might be warranted and lightly applied at that. All the parts of an RPG need to be viewed as parts of a purposeful whole - their meaning and importance rest on the other parts as much as their function in isolation. Once you start pulling the parts out of two games and comparing them and asking which part is better you've already made rather a few unstated assumptions.

Not that you can't compare the parts, but I think you need to do so in a purposeful and informed way. It's like when people ask questions like "what's better, 1d20 or 2d6?" which is a silly question. There's no answer to that question without context.

 

[Fenris-77]

I'm not sure how much the similarities matter if the differences matter to an individual more. Which is more "fundamental" is irrelevant if what's different keeps me from enjoying the game. Games that push the narrative aspects of play overly are less fun for me, so it's a useful term for categorizing different games, even if there are real differences between them in other ways.

Thanks heavens I wasn't trying to frame a definition of games you like then, as I would have failed quite thoroughly.

 

[Fenris-77]

Anyway the deeper I get into RPGs the more I feel there are unbridgeable divides between play styles and the difference is worth noting. I agree with Fenris that "how narrative is a game" is more useful than "is a game narrative"--with the caveat that if narrative is above a certain threshold I won't enjoy it.

I'd really question the use of unbridgeable here. I can think of lots of games that mix the two together in very successful ways. I'm talking about design and function here, not what people like or don't like (which is quite a different conversation, and one that isn't relevant here).

I think part of the issue here is that narrative play and traditional play, by which I really mean something like older D&D, don't really play around with the same set of buttons and dials - the design space being played in doesn't really overlap that much. Not in any kind of way that make them mutually exclusive.