Do TTRPGs Need to "Modernize?"

[payn]

Well, as I said, I didn't find the 1-5th Level PF2e campaign unsatisfying. I'm probably just reacting to some of the "solutions" for 3e era problems I've seen which involved truncating the upper end. My own feeling is if I'm going to do that I'm not sure I see any real point in starting with a D&D style system in the first place.

Well, I think thats an extreme take considering I modified PF1 era APS to end at level 12 and it felt quite satisfying for us int he progress department. I also play a lot of Traveller and it felt different enough not to be a wash.

My main point though is that I think its a folly trying to adapt the game to the idea nobody finishes 1-20 but would, could, should. Lets say you reduce D&D to 10 levels and get a level every session to as to end campaigns in a 3 month cycle. I'd bet you'd have a couple factions complaining about how they never get out of the 3-5 range, and others that blast through 1-10 every time and want much more.

There isnt a single design decision that covers everyone. GMs traditionally have done what works for their groups. I do think modularity could have assisted a lot in this area, but alas it never came about for 5E. If a person has never been satisfied in any RPG, im not thinking the issue is design.

 

[Celebrim]

It's true. Newer isn't always better. West End Games Star Wars was published in 1987 and I think it's much better than Fantasy Flight Games' version first published in 2011 (I think). Innovation is nice, but I value a good solid set of rules over novelty.

That said, even agreeing with you, as a I guy running WEG Star Wars for more than two years now it could really use to pass into the modern era. The core mechanics are mostly OK but the editing of secondary content like vehicles, equipment, races, and creatures was very bad and so collectively those things are poorly design and unbalanced. There are also big gaps in the rules where things were just hand waved off as not core to the game that if you try to make them core to the game they don't really work - powered armor, cybernetics, astrogation, capital ship combat, star ship operations and maintenance, etc. In some areas, I'm having to rely on Traveller for inspiration. Force users could use some tweaking, and there are problems with how good melee combat can get (the Wookie punches the AT-AT problem). Skills could also use some cleanup, as well as maybe rethinking advanced skills. The original version of the game also goes too far in allowing starting characters to match any threat they face, so things like Storm Trooper really could use to go up a tier just so you have a longer period of the game before you need to start introducing elite threats. I'm going to eventually be in the same position with WEG D6 as I am with 3e D&D - my changes are going to become so extensive that I've done all the work of creating my own edition of the game.

There also kludge fixes in the fan community that I'm not really happy with. Like I really don't like "wild die" in a D6 game because 1 in 6 is too often for that sort of thing, and I really don't like how much character points are used as a kludge to overcome the lack of hit points in the game . I not only dislike having two sorts of metacurrency, one of which has no close connection to the in game lore, but I really dislike how spending XP as metacurrency can lead to long term death spirals where you fall behind your comrades in pips and so need to spend more metacurrency to stay relevant leading to you falling more behind you comrades, etc. And I do miss hit points and think the sweet spot in combat is too narrow, as plus or minus one D6 can be the difference between never being threatened and not having a chance.

All these problems existed back when I played it in the 1990's, but back then I didn't have modern examples of rules to compare to the system.

But I'd rather a cleaned edition of D6 than invest in a new system that will turn out to have just as many rough edges and need just as much polishing.

 

[DEFCON 1]

3rd edition (the d20 system) was released in 2000. It's nearly at its Silver Anniversary - or half the history of D&D itself.
The d20 system was new and innovative in 2000. It standardized skill checks and ability modifiers, saving throws, introduced positive AC to D&D, Challenge Ratings, and other new features. We haven't seen a big growth like that in D&D since. (Well, maybe you can make the claim that 4e tried to change some things, but it was dropped because the community at large is resistant to change.)

Except you talked about OSR and that people were valuing "tradition". The OSR certainly is not using 3E as its reflection of "Old School", and few people would ever suggest we were talking about 3E when speaking about "traditional" D&D.

Now if you want to suggest the "modernization" jump of 5E from 3E was not as great as the jump from 3E was from 2E... that's fine. I wouldn't disagree with that. But that's only because the "modernization" jump of 4E from 3E was considered a leap too far and they took a few steps back with 5E. So yes, 5E is reflective of 3E in many ways and isn't as different... but there's still quite of bit of more modern design that separates those two editions. And of course 5E is also reflective of 4E in many ways and its modernization from that edition of D&D is still there too.

The game has evolved over every edition... and the game has brought in concepts and ideas from other RPGs that have come before it too. So I don't know what else needs to occur? Although let's also be honest with ourselves here... the split in board gaming between "traditional" and "modern" games usually uses The Settlers of Catan as its pivot point... and that game got released back in 1995, almost 30 years ago. So if that's when the switch got flipped in board gaming, we could easily just use D&D 3rd Edition as the pivot point in the change of "traditional" to "modern" RPGs too. Thus in that regard there's no more need for any new "modernization" change in RPGs, just like there hasn't been a grand "modernization" change in board gaming for 30 years.

 

[Celebrim]

I'm probably just reacting to some of the "solutions" for 3e era problems I've seen which involved truncating the upper end.

Truncating 3e at some semi-arbitrary point was a kludge fix that could be easily applied to a problem that otherwise required much more complex and less obvious fixes.

 

[Retreater]

Except you talked about OSR and that people were valuing "tradition". The OSR certainly is not using 3E as its reflection of "Old School", and few people would ever suggest we were talking about 3E when speaking about "traditional" D&D.

I have entire tables of players who came in during the WotC era who would beg to differ that the d20 system isn't "traditional D&D."
I'd say that the d20 system has been around long enough to be considered traditional. Perhaps the TSR system would be considered "vintage?"

 

[Neonchameleon]

I stumbled across a YouTube video about the improvement of the modern style of boardgames vs. traditional board games. He gives examples of why games like Resistance are better than Werewolf, and Pandemic is better than Clue. And it is making me think about how to apply this thought to TTRPGs.

(Linking the video below for you to enjoy.)


Here's a quick list of the 10 reasons (though the video goes into more detail than I can here)...
10. They don't outstay their welcome. They have a definitive end that can be predicted. This builds tension and excitement.
9. Every turn is fun. You don't get a dead turn spent just rolling to move and not getting to a destination. All players are equal (same number of actions). There's always something worth doing. You don't have skipped turns (no "Go to Jail" cards.)
8. No player elimination in modern boardgames.
7. Scores are less varied. Objectives can be hidden and not revealed until the end. Scores are often not tallied until the end, so a player doesn't sit around for the whole game feeling like a loser.
6. Different set-ups mean there are unique dynamics to change strategies. It's not always the same game (i.e. chess).
5. Players have agency. Failure isn't controlled by luck.
4. When luck is used, you roll (or draw cards) before deciding what action to take.
3. Boardgames used to be intended for children or were based on war/fighting. There is more working together and less conflict now.
2. Games are less aggressive as a result. You aren't required to bankrupt or wipe out your opponents. They can be competitive without being aggressive.
1. There are many options.

After watching the video, I went through D&D and put it through the same metric.

10. There is no definitive end. We have no idea how long the session/campaign will last (usually). The game usually ends by scheduling problems, lack of interest, TPK, etc. (What if we actually set a limit on a number of sessions? Or an achievable level limit?)
9. There are dead turns. Characters have to spend actions to get into position. Or other times they're Held, Petrified, etc. This is very noticeable in games where it takes 10-30 minutes to go around the table. (What if we rethought the action economy that movement doesn't take the standard action - just makes it a little less effective? Like your damage is halved if you have to run across the battlefield?)
8. Characters get killed - or sometimes just get stuck doing nothing. [I once had a game where I had to go sit in another room because my character got imprisoned - for TWO sessions!] (What if character death happened at the end of the session? Like the final effect of the death didn't occur until after the last encounter of the night?)
7. We don't use traditional scoring methods in TTRPGs.
6. I think we're good on different setups in RPGs.
; 5-4. It stinks to lose your high level spells to bad die rolls. What if we allowed you to roll before you cast the spell? If you roll bad, maybe you hang on to the spell slot?
3. Yeah, we're based on fighting. Don't know if there's a good way around that.
2. But maybe we don't have everything "fight to the death" (as is the Paizo tradition).
1. We do have a lot of options, but we don't discuss them much. Most of the games that have their origins in the 1970s-1990s probably feel around the same with dead turns, character death, no definitive end, etc.

I don't know. I'm just sort of rambling here. Do you think RPGs need to modernize like we've seen in the boardgame hobby?

I thought I'd test Apocalypse World (now over a decade old and one of the most influential indie games) by these metrics.

10: Every campaign I've run has come to a natural end after 6-12 sessions with character arcs and character development that weren't pre-planned but are strong
9: Every roll has consequences. Success, success-with-consequences, or hard move
8: Everyone gets to cheat death a few times. Perma death is something I haven't seen. Being changed and coming back as a member of a different class is part of the game
7: N/A
6: Again, like D&D, we're good. Even the world is created as a part of character creation, so arguably even better.
5: There is agency - and only the players roll dice.
4: This is more complex in a PbtA game; the Sense Motive equivalent allows you to ask a number of questions. You find how many after you roll - and on a failure the responses may be lies.
3: Yeah, Apocalypse World definitely has fighting. And sex
2: Enemies will run.
1: Numbers of options and options within options.

D&D is a better game than Monopoly - but I believe Monopoly is still the bestselling box board game. (Unless we include chess, draughts/checkers, and decks of cards). And RPGs are modernising; D&D is just one of the more traditional ones.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I have entire tables of players who came in during the WotC era who would beg to differ that the d20 system isn't "traditional D&D."
I'd say that the d20 system has been around long enough to be considered traditional. Perhaps the TSR system would be considered "vintage?"

There are adult players now who weren't born when 3.0 came out. To me that's old enough to be traditional.

 

[MGibster]

That said, even agreeing with you, as a I guy running WEG Star Wars for more than two years now it could really use to pass into the modern era. The core mechanics are mostly OK but the editing of secondary content like vehicles, equipment, races, and creatures was very bad and so collectively those things are poorly design and unbalanced.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm one of those people who typically has more criticisms about what he loves than things he hates. I remember having to ban one particular race, some sort of reptile, because they got a +2d armor for physical attacks and +1d armor for energy making them walking tanks. I don't remember a lot of problems with vehicles, I actually liked how damage changed based on scale, but I do remember things getting really wonky with the Force. The skill list could probably stand be pared down a bit. I honestly don't know why we really need an astrogation skill in any Star Wars game. I understand traveling through hyperspace ain't like dusting crops, boy, but under no circumstances is it fun to roll for astrogation.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I have entire tables of players who came in during the WotC era who would beg to differ that the d20 system isn't "traditional D&D."
I'd say that the d20 system has been around long enough to be considered traditional. Perhaps the TSR system would be considered "vintage?"

What does this have to do with the "modernization" of RPGs?

 

[Retreater]

What does this have to do with the "modernization" of RPGs?

I was responding to your claim that 3rd edition isn't a form of traditional D&D.
And if you're referring to the OSR specifically, I can tell you that the OSR owes more to 3rd edition and the d20 system than anything TSR created.
Without the 3rd edition OGL there wouldn't be an OSR. Many OSR games (Basic Fantasy, Castles and Crusades to name two) use 3rd edition as their basis. I'd say DCC does as well.
So, basically everything in "D&D" right now comes from 3rd edition.