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

[JohnSnow]

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

Because "better" is subjective. I find streamlining to be what I think of as "modern."

I don't (personally) like looking up tables. I don't like there being multiple resolution subsystems.Some people prefer dice mechanics to be tailored to particular situations. Some people would interpret "modern" as "more narrative."

Have I focused my definition of "modern mechanics" in such a way as to not include the newer game innovations that don't streamline games? Absolutely. I have a bias. Newer doesn't necessarily mean "modern."

To pick on another system, I think Traveler had some very "modern" mechanics. And it came out a LONG time ago.

 

[mamba]

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.

yes, and why is that a problem?

 

[Micah Sweet]

yes, and why is that a problem?

It isn't. I was just requesting that it be more clearly expressed, which it was when they admitted their bias (not a problem either; I have plenty freely admitted ones of my own). It's the kind of claim people rarely say flat out but is often implied.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Looking for "Modern TTRPG Mechanics"?
Look no further then the Dungeon Crawl Classis RPG!
It's full of examples of modern TTRPG stuff!

Want a game that focuses on a specific experience??
Dungeon Crawl Classis is entirely geared towards classic dungeon crawling action!
Want a game that understands how to use rules to craft that specific experience?
Dungeon Crawl Classis!
It requires D17/30/etc so you'll get the feeling of having to search for and use strange dice, just like how people had to search for d10s back in the seventies! Every spell casts had a completely random table of effects to bring back the weirdness of magic. Every campaign starts off with a funnel to simulate the high causality rates of the early levels!!

Even the very creator himself embodies the modern TTRPG ideal of having a passionate desire that also forces you into making suboptimal plays!!

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

I'd say that unified core mechanics is what I'd consider to have been modern in the 1980s - and even D&D has been on this style for half its life; it was one of the major changes made by 3.0 while even in the 90s 2e felt archaic

 

[pemerton]

I'd say that unified core mechanics is what I'd consider to have been modern in the 1980s

If it can count as unified if it also adds a damage determination system as a consequence of a successful attack roll, then I think Classic Traveller (1977) probably counts, and Rolemaster too.

Prince Valiant (1989) is probably a better example, though - its damage system is just part of its core mechanic. (A little bit like Burning Wheel Bloody Versus.(

 

[Deset Gled]

I'd say that unified core mechanics is what I'd consider to have been modern in the 1980s - and even D&D has been on this style for half its life; it was one of the major changes made by 3.0 while even in the 90s 2e felt archaic

100% this. WEG d6 system and Toon both had unified mechanics in the 80s, and I'm sure there's a ton more in the 90s. It's not a modern idea, just one that D&D was a bit late to.

 

[Thomas Shey]

100% this. WEG d6 system and Toon both had unified mechanics in the 80s, and I'm sure there's a ton more in the 90s. It's not a modern idea, just one that D&D was a bit late to.

D&D wasn't the only one though; there was a pretty fair bit of special-casing for no obvious reason for quite a long time.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't think we have any major disagreements here, I think we just differ on the shading. With one exception. RPGs are special, at least insofar as they really aren't the same as games like bridge, or a board game - there's a whole other set of enormously important things going on in RPGs that make them their own case. This isn't simply a matter of better or worse design (although that is undeniably important) but I think that your argument is entirely focused on the rules, rules as interpretable text, and ignores what I think is the core element of RPGs, which is the conversation that happens at the table. That exchange of interpretations and meeting of hermeneutic horizons that characterize the recursive exploration of the shared diegetic space. It's really not that much like bridge.

Yeah. The core element of RPG play is collaborative storytelling, and it does not really require much rules. And the goal of the game is not "to win" using rules optimally. Sure, that can be part of the gameplay, but it really is not central to what RPGs essentially are. So I think the rules being basically an optional extra and tools to help with your main goal makes them fundamentally different than a game such as chess.

 

[Deset Gled]

Yeah. The core element of RPG play is collaborative storytelling, and it does not really require much rules.