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

[Neonchameleon]

It seems to me that there may be a profitable distinction to be made between:

1. We are creating story with planned direction - 'OK in the next scene Bob can meet his nemesis and then win after a close fight, but at the cost of his friendship to Jade and he gets a scar that reminds him of his past traumas'. We know what the story is going to be, at least in the very near term.

2. We are creating story without planned direction - the game is full of story-fuel or story-generating elements such as personal enmities. fragile relationships, opportunities to escalate at a cost, pyrhhic victories, psychological traumas, goals, flaws, etc, and we bash them all together to see what happens. We know a story is going to happen but we don't know what it will be.

3. We are creating story as a byproduct of other things - the characters fight monsters and explore dungeons and our focus is really on battle tactics or experiencing a fantasy world, so story isn't really on our minds. But, sure that will constitute a story of some kind I guess, and you can tell it afterwards with more intentionality if you want.

I think a lot of games that might be in box 2 get characterised as being in box 1 by people who don't really play them.

100%

I would also say that you are also condensing two axes - collaborative scene building and pre-plotted arcs.

For example someone running Pathfinder: Rise of the Runelords (either edition) has vastly more of the story pre-plotted than any game of Fate I have ever seen and I would argue that any game of Apocalypse World or Blades in the Dark can.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think that definition of "game" which excludes a large swathes of things people actually call games is probably not a very good definition and you should rethink it.



I don't think so. People are merely discussing RPG features they perceive as modern.

What things are you talking about? What large swathe of things people call games am I excluding? RPGs are still games, I just don't think you're interacting with them as games when you don't use the rules. And the same is true IMO for any other activity that lacks rules. It's not a game without them IMO, and if you're not using them then at that time you're not playing a game, even if the general activity is a game.

 

[soviet]

What things are you talking about? What large swathe of things people call games am I excluding? RPGs are still games, I just don't think you're interacting with them as games when you don't use the rules. And the same is true IMO for any other activity that lacks rules. It's not a game without them IMO, and if you're not using them then at that time you're not playing a game, even if the general activity is a game.

If I'm playing football and then the ball goes off the pitch, have I stopped playing football?

If I'm playing football, but I don't have the ball and I am simply running up the field, am I really playing football?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

What things are you talking about? What large swathe of things people call games am I excluding? RPGs are still games, I just don't think you're interacting with them as games when you don't use the rules. And the same is true IMO for any other activity that lacks rules. It's not a game without them IMO, and if you're not using them then at that time you're not playing a game, even if the general activity is a game.

Under your definition most of the time playing roleplaying games is not actually playing roleplaying games. To me that is blatantly absurd definition. But I am really not interested in this semantic nonsense.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If I'm playing football and then the ball goes off the pitch, have I stopped playing football?

If I'm playing football, but I don't have the ball and I am simply running up the field, am I really playing football?

Of course you are. There are rules for both those situations. This is another weak analogy.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Under your definition most of the time playing roleplaying games is not actually playing roleplaying games. To me that is blatantly absurd definition. But I am really not interested in this semantic nonsense.

Some of the time you're not literally playing a game, no. You're engaging in a socialization exercise that could and most likely will eventually lead to interacting with the rules, which would then to engaging in gameplay.

And keep in mind I'm not just talking about combat. Any rules interaction, including skills, exploration, time management (like Shadowdark's torches or the concept of exploration rounds), social mechanics, all of that is gameplay. If the players are interacting with the GM and that individual's actions at the time are influenced by the rules, you're playing the game. Completely rules-free interaction may or may not be "most of the time" in a session.

 

[soviet]

Of course you are. There are rules for both those situations. This is another weak analogy.

What's the difference between 'I am a football player running up the pitch while someone else has the ball' and 'I am a D&D player making small talk in character while someone else is talking to the important NPC'?

Edit: what rules of football apply to me when I'm running up the pitch nowhere near the ball?

 

[Fenris-77]

What's the difference between 'I am a football player running up the pitch while someone else has the ball' and 'I am a D&D player making small talk in character while someone else is talking to the important NPC'?

Edit: what rules of football apply to me when I'm running up the pitch nowhere near the ball?

Well, the pitch itself for one, plus all the rules about how you may or may not make contact with other players as you run. Possibly also offensive strategies if you're running a passing route. Plus the play timer which tells you when to stop running and return to the huddle. So, actually rather a lot of rules. I'm not sure where that leaves us though.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What's the difference between 'I am a football player running up the pitch while someone else has the ball' and 'I am a D&D player making small talk in character while someone else is talking to the important NPC'?

Edit: what rules of football apply to me when I'm running up the pitch nowhere near the ball?

I assume you have a position on the team and a job to do. You're not on the bench, so you're on the field for a reason, and you're interacting with the rules of play.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Let's spell this out and we'll see if it holds together. "Roleplaying games can be games, but they don't have to be". You see the problem, right? Unless the term 'roleplaying game' is somehow incorrect, then your comment certainly applies to roleplaying, but not obviously to roleplaying game.

I think as the hobby has evolved "roleplaying game" hasn't been generically accurate for some time now, but terms often outlive their original function, so...

If we FKR type games as an exception that causes problems here, I'd be much more likely to say that FKR play isn't a roleplaying game, although it certainly is roleplaying.

From my understanding of it, that seems right.

I think you'll need to be a lot more specific and detailed about terms like 'support a game' and 'small games attaches to a broader framework' if you want anyone to engage seriously with what seems to be a radically different definition of 'RPG' than anyone else here is using.

One can question whether that's because in a lot of cases saying "That's not an RPG" is more gatekeeping than trying for clarity, though, and the response to that is going to both be immediate and strong.