Do TTRPGs Need to "Modernize?"

[Celebrim]

It's because of modernization that we lost gold for exp, racial level limits, 3d6 stats rolled on order, the commoner class, material components, d4 hit dice, and true Vancain casting. How much more lost can we stand???

My game has four of those seven as well, and I'm in the process of creating a campaign (if I can ever learn to draw on a computer and run a virtual table top) that would have five of seven.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

"I love chess, but I wish I were better at it." The fact that this statement is made by literally everyone who plays chess says something about the power of this game.

I also love this game, and it's the only game I have seen induce actual nervous breakdowns.

Really? I love Diplomacy!

It's a great way to get rid of unwanted friends without having to have uncomfortable and unpleasant personal (ugh!) conversations ... and all for the cost of a weekend!

 

[Retreater]

It's not as if that critique doesn't apply to a fair number of new modern games either. They can get complicated in their rules for setup and play with lots of moving parts, pieces, and construction.

I can't argue that. I was only responding to the suggestion of PF2's hitting all the requirements.
For example, I was reading through Age of Sigmar: Soulbound. On the surface, it's a pretty streamlined game - which is hampered by the addition of at least three forms of metacurrency of different power levels, functions, and rate of awarding (one is every round).

You don't have to wait for someone to design these things. They exist. Check out Shadow of the Weird Wizard/Demon Lord for a game designed to fit a campaign (and "capstone abilities") into 10 adventures.

I have SotDL, but didn't like the theme and setting. I'm very interested in Weird Wizard and 13th Age 2.

I strongly suggest you start taking a proper look at what games are out there, because everything you claim you want is pretty much already available -- and I strongly suspect that there are many things you don't know you want yet that are also out there waiting for you to find them.

When I counted last August, I had 56 different game systems, and I know I've added some since then. Of course, I haven't tried them all in play. Some of them I haven't read completely.

While I appreciate all the suggestions to help me find a good game, the point I was trying to make was a theoretical question: have RPGs as a whole "modernized" or do they even need to? In my mind, I think many of the RPGs we talk about the most still hold to vestigial design traits. The proliferation of OSR content and the "back to basics" approach of 5e's design indicate that - for the hobby in general - we value tradition more than progress.

 

[TheSword]

Progress is overrated.

The best adventure campaign to this day I’ve ever ran (and I’ve ran it four times in different editions/systems and decades). Was first published in 1986. It’s changed a bit but much for most of it.

I value mastery over innovation. I’d rather someone do their thing really darn well than the latest thing because it’s trendy.

 

[payn]

Yes. I think there are more 1-10 than 11-20, but I wouldn't say that the system overall has a satisfying finality to character growth at Level 10 (or a beginning at Level 11.) For example, you don't get a climactic capstone ability at 10th level and get to face an especially epic end. It feels like you just cut off the campaign with a thud.
There's a module line as well, kind of as an after thought. By all reports I've heard, they're mostly not very good.

What I would like is an RPG that's designed from the ground up to play like most of the data suggests we play them. Most campaigns don't go from 1-20 and don't last years. How about designing a game that lasts months (not years)? Let players actually enjoy the capstone abilities and epic encounters?

Campaign length is entirely in the GMs hands. Some folks blitz through Paizo APs in a matter of 3-6 months routinely. You could just use adventure league or Pathfinder Society organized play scenario style to run episodic 3-4 hour contained adventures. Speed up the process.

I ran APs in PF1 for a straight decade. Took 2 years to complete one playing 2X a month. Not once did my players complain about not getting to level 20 or missing out on capstones. If we are going by what the data suggests, that rang true during the One playtest with epic boons, they went over like a lead balloon. I dont think folks are that worried about them.

 

[Celebrim]

Progress is overrated.

The best adventure campaign to this day I’ve ever ran (and I’ve ran it four times in different editions/systems and decades). Was first published in 1986. It’s changed a bit but much for most of it.

I value mastery over innovation. I’d rather someone do their thing really darn well than the latest thing because it’s trendy.

When I think of progress, I think of Gimli's description of how a dwarf might make progress in improving the glittering caves of Aglarond in the Lord of the Rings; one small carefully chosen patient chip on the stone would be enough for a day's labor. I don't generally think of smashing everything that has gone before and starting over, but of someone eternalizing the lessons of 20 years of experience and coming up to solutions. The first 25 years saw a games that were a mixture of good even inspired ideas and bad designs with most of the fixes tending toward more and more and eventually unreasonable complexity, but the "modern" period we are currently in has seen theory triumph over experience and so many games dropped in as whole creations without any real play testing to confirm the ideas are sound. And to me, its not that surprising that these theoretical games don't play as well as they read, or that they play well for a little while and then stumble over their own design.

 

[MGibster]

I value mastery over innovation. I’d rather someone do their thing really darn well than the latest thing because it’s trendy.

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.

 

[DEFCON 1]

While I appreciate all the suggestions to help me find a good game, the point I was trying to make was a theoretical question: have RPGs as a whole "modernized" or do they even need to? In my mind, I think many of the RPGs we talk about the most still hold to vestigial design traits. The proliferation of OSR content and the "back to basics" approach of 5e's design indicate that - for the hobby in general - we value tradition more than progress.

Yes, RPGs have modernized. And the easiest way to recognize it is to read all of these OSR games and see how they are written and formatted in modern D&D editions stylings even while its gameplay is based upon older editions. Simply the change of ACs going down to ACs going up is the easiest identifier about how even OSR has modernized.

D&D having skills is the game having modernized. D&D forsaking encumbrance for the most part is the game having modernized. D&D adding Backgrounds to characters on top of their class to give us a sense of who they were prior to becoming adventurers is the game having modernized. D&D including Traits, Ideals, Bonds and Flaws for character description beyond just their alignment is the game having modernized.

The problem in my opinion is that there are just so many things that have evolved slowly over time that we just don't think about them as "modernization". But they absolutely are. Just compare anything from 4E and 5E to AD&D and you'll see the modernization of the game all over the place... even when keeping things that look like traditional things without any progress. Heck... D&D's ability scores have modernized-- giving us standard modifier bonuses every two ability score points instead of the rather random point in AD&D when certain ability scores might give you a bonus and only for certain classes. So while someone might say "The ability scores are still traditional and haven't progressed!"... they are in fact incorrect.

Which means at this point it comes down to the individual looking at all of these modernization points and then having to decide whether they think those points "count". And that's where the arguments will come in-- because some people just won't believe something has gotten better, cleaner, more streamlined or more modern if it doesn't match whatever they think "modernization" is in their own minds. But for those people? Nothing we can do for them. We can makes claims and examples until the cows come home but they just won't accept it because their mind's made up.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Unfortunately it is very cluttered with design and not very approachable.
The other issue is that it isn't very well structured for limited run games. The default is that 20 level AP structure.

I played in a 5 level campaign of it, so I'm not sure why you say this.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It's not as if that critique doesn't apply to a fair number of new modern games either. They can get complicated in their rules for setup and play with lots of moving parts, pieces, and construction.

A lot of the problem with that is the insistence on one-off design all over the place. D&D has always done that, but it starts to be obvious how cluttered it is when everyone is using all the special-case pieces in multiple places.