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

[Thomas Shey]

Who's making that assumption here, and why?

Since I've seen people when the TORG example come up assure everyone that the connected parts either had to be connected or had no reason to be connected, both?

 

[Neonchameleon]

I think it very difficult, bordering on impossible, to account for 'immersion breakage' in any kind of definitive way. Some folks have no issues with mechanic X while others find it immensely immersion breaking. Lots of folks equate meta mechanics of various sorts with immersion issues, but not with enough fidelity across the board that I think it's useful to connect the two. Partially as well because immersion at the table isn't just about the individual player, but also the system, and all the other players at the table.

I think that immersion is 100% to do with how comfortable the players at the table are with the system and should always be treated as a personal matter. This doesn't mean that some mechanics don't make immersion harder in the same way that some materials for seats make comfort harder.

If you want to destroy my immersion meta-mechanics are fine, but having a dozen different subsystems that all work differently with little rhyme or reason is going to do it because I actually need to tease out which mechanic we are using every time.

 

[Fenris-77]

Despite its importance generally, I feel like we should perhaps set issues of immersion aside here. The scope of that conversation is one of personal taste and experience and as such I don't think it has a lot of to add to the discussion of modern mechanics.

I do think that the idea adds some interesting direction here though. There is probably something to be said about where and how various mechanics operate. For example, a mechanic that plays during combat is far more up front in the table experience than one that plays out during downtime. I might use some visual imagery here to tag the various options - foreground, midground, and background seem like useful terms to describe this. So a combat mechanic is foregrounded, as is spellcasting, as are things like luck points. Background mechanics would be things like camp rolls, training, experience (mostly), and long term projects. Midground is maybe a bit harder to come to grips with, but here I'm thinking first of some GM-side mechanics like exploration rolls or torch timers, but also flashback mechanics and lore rolls. The point of view I'm using is that of the players, not the GM, as the GM's point of view or orientation to the setting during play is very different.

This isn't mean to be prescriptive, but simply descriptive. A lot depends on the system. This does allow us a vocabulary to assess the difference between various meta mechanics or other systems in terms of intrusiveness, by which I mean something like how likely they are to disrupt the flow of play (which you can read as breaking immersion in some instances, I suppose). A foreground mechanic or system is much more likely to interrupt the flow of play than a background one.

 

[Fenris-77]

Here's an interesting article from Clayton Notestine at Explorer's Design about mechanics, dominant mechanics, and designing by omission.

 

[Aldarc]

Here's an interesting article from Clayton Notestine at Explorer's Design about mechanics, dominant mechanics, and designing by omission.

Interesting, but I'm not sure if I agree with his application of "desire paths" (or other concepts) in his examples.

 

[Fenris-77]

Interesting, but I'm not sure if I agree with his application of "desire paths" (or other concepts) in his examples.

I haven't even finished reading the article. I had to stop halfway through to teach a class. I'll circle back with some thoughts.

 

[GobHag]

Interesting, but I'm not sure if I agree with his application of "desire paths" (or other concepts) in his examples.

I actually do agree with him but it also applies when the rules or balance heuristics themselves are ignored(see 5e's 5 minute adventuring day)

 

[Maxperson]

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.

I've rolled 12's and I've rolled natural 20's. I can say without any context at all which one I like better!!

 

[Aldarc]

I actually do agree with him but it also applies when the rules or balance heuristics themselves are ignored(see 5e's 5 minute adventuring day)

My issue regarding "desire paths" is with "I don't think it's too far a reach to suggest, that if you create a mechanic that negates the need for complexity or variables, players are likely to use it." I don't think that a designed mechanic that negates complexity represents a "desire path" because that represents players using the path created. "Desire paths" are about unintended paths that people (and animals) prefer over the designated paths.

A better example of a "desire path," and the one that I likewise had in mind, is the "15-minute adventuring day" of 3e and 5e. That represents the players utilizing a "desire path" that the designers had not intended.

 

[Fenris-77]

My issue regarding "desire paths" is with "I don't think it's too far a reach to suggest, that if you create a mechanic that negates the need for complexity or variables, players are likely to use it." I don't think that a designed mechanic that negates complexity represents a "desire path" because that represents players using the path created. "Desire paths" are about unintended paths that people (and animals) prefer over the designated paths.

A better example of a "desire path," and the one that I likewise had in mind, is the "15-minute adventuring day" of 3e and 5e. That represents the players utilizing a "desire path" that the designers had not intended.

I might agree with you in detail, but in broader strokes he's on to something. As regards HP for example. I'm not sure, as you are not, that the focus on HP in combat represents a desire path as such, at least not a path based on clear choices. I do think that HP tend to occlude most other options in combat though, especially for newer players. Sometimes that changes. For example, when one looks carefully at the 5E wizard spells the overwhelming usefulness of control spells over damage spells is pretty clear. The catch is you need a pretty deep reading (or a good blog post) to really see the underlying math and ramifications. Better examples might the 2014 Battlemaster, or Bardic Inspiration.

What HP does have going for it is precisely what he mentions in the article - the effects are instant and very measurable. There are no delayed effects or fuzzy possibilities as there are if you decide to trip or disarm instead of doing direct damage. 5E really lacks any specific telos in combat other than the kill and doing damage speaks directly to that aim. In a different game, one that has morale rules and one that isn't predicated on fighting to the death, those other options might look more attractive to the same player, at least in part because they more directly index a path to a win condition.