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

[Fenris-77]

It often only needs one player to be learning the higher options for it to propagate, though; even some players who won't put in a lot of effort themselves, if someone finds a better path, they'll take it.

(Some people just can't be arsed, of course).

This is very true.

 

[Neonchameleon]

See, that's sort of exactly what I'm taking shots at. I used contract bridge, a very old and very popular game as an example, and this kind of heuristic development is the basis of interaction with board games and video games. You make up a theory about how to play Slay the Spire or which resource you should start with in Agricola, and over repeated plays discard and form new ones. Analyzing a game's proposed heuristics might be advanced designer stuff, but it's very basic player stuff.

I don't think RPGs are special, except in so much as we choose to treat them as special in the design. People who play games play all those other games too, and do all these same things. I think it's pretty obvious that RPG players learn about the rules (even if in a lot of games, that means learning about what procedures their GM likes them to deploy) and play through similar patterns.

That the "average" player doesn't, I think, is as much a reflection of RPGs generally not actually having designed far enough for them to learn much. Board states are too similar, action choices are too constrained or FOO, games are too fragile and get redesigned when players try strategies too far outside the norms, and we've built a culture that rhetorically tries to suppress players from pushing past initial heuristics, with the optimizers and the munchkins and the rules-lawyers and all of it.

It's the games, not the players that are the problem. They either lack depth so that beginner heuristics remain correct or aren't stable enough for players to do it and fall apart when players deviate from an expected baseline gameplan.

In all honesty you need to find better games. One of the things I look for in a game I'm considering for a campaign is whether there at least appears to be depth and I can see options that are non-trivial. And one of the other things I look for is whether actually engaging what's there would appear to snap the game by accident.

To use 3.5 references I'm not worried about the Pun-Pun arrived at as a thought experiment; I'm worried about the thematic and accidentally found aggressively hegmonizing ursine swarm; the druid who turns into a bear with a bear companion who summons bears, any two of which can beat up the fighter or the wizard with the loose leaf ring binder full of home made spells and quiver full of wands.

And seriously, one of the things I like about much post-Forge game design is that it's frequently obvious how to push things, but that doesn't so much put you on a road to ridiculous effortless power but takes you on a highway to hell where you learn through getting traumatised and either taking risks or failing. And risk-reward in an dynamic situation or test-your-luck is never trivial.

 

[Thomas Shey]

And seriously, one of the things I like about much post-Forge game design is that it's frequently obvious how to push things, but that doesn't so much put you on a road to ridiculous effortless power but takes you on a highway to hell where you learn through getting traumatised and either taking risks or failing. And risk-reward in an dynamic situation or test-your-luck is never trivial.

Problem with that is I've never felt like turning up the benefit of being risk-taking and lucky over being cautious is particularly virtuous in its sociodynamics. You can't avoid it completely, but feeding it doesn't seem benign.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Problem with that is I've never felt like turning up the benefit of being risk-taking and lucky over being cautious is particularly virtuous in its sociodynamics. You can't avoid it completely, but feeding it doesn't seem benign.

It depends what your goal is. Virtue, possibly not? Fun, yes. Interesting stories, definitely.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It depends what your goal is. Virtue, possibly not? Fun, yes. Interesting stories, definitely.

That's it. I don't think its fun for most groups as a whole. Because you're presented with the dilemma of "Do I want ot find out if I can be as lucky as Joe here, stick with the middle and always be a little substandard, or try and be really substandard?" I don't think that's a fun dynamic for most people.

 

[pemerton]

Problem with that is I've never felt like turning up the benefit of being risk-taking and lucky over being cautious is particularly virtuous in its sociodynamics. You can't avoid it completely, but feeding it doesn't seem benign.

That's it. I don't think its fun for most groups as a whole. Because you're presented with the dilemma of "Do I want ot find out if I can be as lucky as Joe here, stick with the middle and always be a little substandard, or try and be really substandard?" I don't think that's a fun dynamic for most people.

To me, it seems that you're not fully responding to the bits that I've bolded:

And seriously, one of the things I like about much post-Forge game design is that it's frequently obvious how to push things, but that doesn't so much put you on a road to ridiculous effortless power but takes you on a highway to hell where you learn through getting traumatised and either taking risks or failing. And risk-reward in an dynamic situation or test-your-luck is never trivial.

The worry about "do I want to find out if I can be as lucky as Joe?" seems appropriate to an early D&D luck-based dungeon. Lewis Pulsipher wrote about this in White Dwarf 45-odd years ago.

But I don't really feel its force in the context of the games/designs that @Neonchameleon is referring to. In those games, to play the game is to take risks. (Eg in Burning Wheel, the rule for a roll is required is that something is at stake, as per the priorities that the player has established for their PC. So if it matters, then there *is a risk.)

And pushing things, as Neonchameleon said, doesn't "put you on a road to ridiculous effortless power". It puts the PC on a "highway to hell" - that's what the play of the game consists in. And learning - that is, advancement of PC attributes - arises from taking risk, from failing, from getting traumatised, depending on the game. (Compare eg Burning Wheel to Dungeon World.)

There's no opportunity, in these games, to "stick with the middle". That's like turning up to play bridge but not wanting to take the risk of being dealt a hand: it's not a way to play the game.

 

[Thomas Shey]

To me, it seems that you're not fully responding to the bits that I've bolded:
The worry about "do I want to find out if I can be as lucky as Joe?" seems appropriate to an early D&D luck-based dungeon. Lewis Pulsipher wrote about this in White Dwarf 45-odd years ago.

But I don't really feel its force in the context of the games/designs that @Neonchameleon is referring to. In those games, to play the game is to take risks. (Eg in Burning Wheel, the rule for a roll is required is that something is at stake, as per the priorities that the player has established for their PC. So if it matters, then there *is a risk.)

And pushing things, as Neonchameleon said, doesn't "put you on a road to ridiculous effortless power". It puts the PC on a "highway to hell" - that's what the play of the game consists in. And learning - that is, advancement of PC attributes - arises from taking risk, from failing, from getting traumatised, depending on the game. (Compare eg Burning Wheel to Dungeon World.)

There's no opportunity, in these games, to "stick with the middle". That's like turning up to play bridge but not wanting to take the risk of being dealt a hand: it's not a way to play the game.

The lack of a safe path was not clear from the postings; usually in systems I've seen that have risk-to-gain options, they aren't mandatory. To me "effortless" would have implied that the risk wasn't there, where the rest said it was. So I assumed the three case outcome (I've seen the three case outcomes in some magic systems, where the middle case was "don't use magic")

(As to the manditory case--as I've noted before, that's just a reason for some people not to play the game).

 

[Lanefan]

Problem with that is I've never felt like turning up the benefit of being risk-taking and lucky over being cautious is particularly virtuous in its sociodynamics. You can't avoid it completely, but feeding it doesn't seem benign.

This greatly depends on the overall approach of the players.

If they're by nature already too cautious then turning up the benefits of taking risks and-or being lucky is IMO essential. If they're already a gonzo lot who throw caution to the wind at every opportunity, however, turning up the benefits of caution a bit can be a good idea.

 

[JohnSnow]

For me, "Modern" game design means "streamlined" and not having different fiddly subsystems for everything.

Do I have to look something up on a chart or table every time? That's not "modern." Do I use a different subsystem for resolving a particular category of task for a reason other than "streamlining" or "design choice?" That's not modern.

So I'd say the base resolution of "Powered by the Apocalypse" games is "modern." They use a simple resolution mechanic, whether you're engaging in combat, searching a room, or swinging over a chasm. Sometimes, those resolutions are quick, more detailed, or highly involved, but that's determined by how narratively significant it is.

Old School D&D and OSR games where we resolve combat with d20 checks but some skills with a 1d6 and others by rolling percentile dice are...not modern. They also require me to look things up in a book, as opposed to being something I can easily memorize. THAC0 was more modern than earlier D&D/AD&D because a single mechanic that you could use to determine what you had to roll was easier. Attack Bonuses or Target numbers that are right there on your character sheet? That's easier still.

Similarly, Advantage/Disadvantage or Hindered/Favored is more modern than having to determine a difficulty modifier by consulting a pile of tables of modifiers.

One of the reasons why I like Shadowdark is that, while it's OSR-style it has what I generally think of as "modern mechanics." The basic resolution check is "Roll a d20, high numbers good." DCs are graded as Easy (9), Normal (12), Hard (15), or Extreme (18). Kelsey also encourages GMs to take the creature into account when setting DCs, so a task might be harder or easier for a particular character.

My two cents.

 

[Micah Sweet]

For me, "Modern" game design means "streamlined" and not having different fiddly subsystems for everything.

Do I have to look something up on a chart or table every time? That's not "modern." Do I use a different subsystem for resolving a particular category of task for a reason other than "streamlining" or "design choice?" That's not modern.

So I'd say the base resolution of "Powered by the Apocalypse" games is "modern." They use a simple resolution mechanic, whether you're engaging in combat, searching a room, or swinging over a chasm. Sometimes, those resolutions are quick, more detailed, or highly involved, but that's determined by how narratively significant it is.

Old School D&D and OSR games where we resolve combat with d20 checks but some skills with a 1d6 and others by rolling percentile dice are...not modern. They also require me to look things up in a book, as opposed to being something I can easily memorize. THAC0 was more modern than earlier D&D/AD&D because a single mechanic that you could use to determine what you had to roll was easier. Attack Bonuses or Target numbers that are right there on your character sheet? That's easier still.

Similarly, Advantage/Disadvantage or Hindered/Favored is more modern than having to determine a difficulty modifier by consulting a pile of tables of modifiers.

One of the reasons why I like Shadowdark is that, while it's OSR-style it has what I generally think of as "modern mechanics." The basic resolution check is "Roll a d20, high numbers good." DCs are graded as Easy (9), Normal (12), Hard (15), or Extreme (18). Kelsey also encourages GMs to take the creature into account when setting DCs, so a task might be harder or easier for a particular character.

My two cents.

So ..what I'm hearing without you coming out and saying it is, for you, what you identify as modern mechanics are just better, across the board. Newer is better, unless the newer thing is based on an older thing. Simplicity is always better than complexity.

Why not just say that? There is nothing neutral about your delivery.