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

soviet said:

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.

Click to expand...

soviet said:

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.

Click to expand...

Crimson Longinus said:

Yeah to me too, but but I see that as subset of "collaborative storytelling" as in a some sort of series of interesting event, (thus "a story") is generated by it. I did not mean "collaborative storytelling in limited narrativist sense (only, that is included too.) But in that experience you describe, of the players imagining the characters, inhabiting them, deciding their actions, and the GM generating the world and deciding plausible outcomes of actions and events, the rules are merely an aid, they are not really required, and lot of time they are not used; the player just says what their character does and the GM decides what happens. No mechanics used, yet we are playing a roleplaying game.

Click to expand...

Crimson Longinus said:

So, in any RPG I've ever played, there will be long stretches of gameplay where the rules are not used. Yet RPG is still being played. Thus it is apparent that rules are not required for playing a RPG being possible. To me me this conclusion is obvious and irrefutable.

Click to expand...

Micah Sweet said:

In the scenario you describe, you are definitely role-playing, but if you aren't interacting with the rules in some fashion I just can't see how you're playing a game.

Click to expand...

Micah Sweet said:

I'm not convinced you're actually playing the game during those periods when you're not interacting with the rules. Instead it looks to me like you're engaging in free roleplay/acting/storytelling, not actually gameplay. Again, you're doing the RP without the G.

Click to expand...

soviet said:

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.

Click to expand...

Micah Sweet said:

You're probably right, but I think there are plenty of folks who don't care for box 2 games much more (or any more) than box 1 games, so painting them both with the same brush, while inaccurate, works for them because they don't like either, and for essentially the same reason, so the distinction isn't important to their interests.

Click to expand...

Crimson Longinus said:

Because that is how it is called in practice. If you had a session (or even a part of a session)of D&D, where the rules were not referenced, I bet that in real life you still describe that as "playing a RPG." This is just how people use these words in reality, so I see no value (quite the opposite) in definitions that contradict that reality. Having in-character conversations without dice rolls, exploring the setting without dice rolls etc. are all things that constantly happen when playing roleplaying games, and to me it seems bizarre to insist that large stretches of playing roleplaying games is actually not playing roleplaying games! It is just confused and counterproductive.

Click to expand...

soviet said:

I don't like mayonnaise and I don't like headaches, doesn't mean they are the same thing

Click to expand...

Micah Sweet said:

I might call it that, for the reasons you describe, but I would be wrong IMO.

Click to expand...

Micah Sweet said:

I thought this was a discussion where we were looking for accurate definitions, even if they're technical, not one where the vernacular has to be defaulted to. Were that the case, why does it matter whether mechanics are "modern" or not, or if you are telling a story during or after play, or not at all? This is all about technical definitions.

Click to expand...