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

[RenleyRenfield]

While I don't really disagree with your point, I think even at that point there were some differences in how they presented the role of the two. Whether that showed up in play is a different question.

I am simply highlighting the "mechanics" part of this thread.
To me, it's worth talking about actual mechanics and not soft feels on how different people may run a game. I think it goes without saying that people can ignore rules or make their own rules. So I am just addressing the games themselves.

See, this is where I curse the Forge and how its influence on RPGs can be extremely regressive. Specifically, the hyperfocus on jargon. Jargon is supposed to be a tool for communication, not a hallmark of design.

The idea of "'player agency" has been around since the days of Gygax vs Arneson, with Gygax generally being more system oriented and Arneson being more about player agency. Just because people didn't use modern vernacular to talk about it doesn't mean it wasn't a design consideration. Synnibar is the easiest example that I could give because it has the clearest mechanics for player agency. But there are plenty of other examples.

Star Wars WEG D6, for example, specifically gives advice to gamemasters about when to allow players to choose to do whatever they want in the world of Star Wars, when to give a list of options, and how to give the illusion of choice when you don't have things prepared. Just because they're not talking about those things in terms of Player Agency, Illusionism, and Sandbox vs. Railroad doesn't mean they're not actively designing with all those things in mind. It just means they didn't use the same jargon. And make no mistake, West End Games was not only a major group, but they predate VtM as well.

This is a misinterpretation of rules vs rulings. And it gives us a reason to want to better communicate, ergo we try to consider giving firmer definition to terms used.

- Suggesting a GM let the players act more or narrate more = not a mechanic. That is in fact, a suggestion on style of play, which has no mechanic behind it.

When we talk about Player Agency, we are trying to give a term to things like the PBTA move "Negotiate" which, when rolled no longer let's the GM fully have "agency" over the terms and conditions and results of the roll.

Instead, the game gives a hard and fast mechanic that gives a ruling: "They do it full stop. or They do it but... it will cost more, or they will betray you later, or they protect their position ad give you little, etc etc".

So this is an area where we not longer have pass = GM decides what happens, and fail = GM decides what happens.

This is very much new, and much more common as of 2015. With more and more game systems adding in these types of mechanics. (it may have started as early as 2005 or so, but we see the huge boom closer to 2015~2018 and it grow ever since)

I am not saying this is best or better or anything like that.

I am simply saying that "there is a shift in roleplaying, and there is a different view and expectation the newer and more modern players have." = AND by and large = these new play styles and expectations do NOT align with older games mechanics. Thus there is a difference. And we are trying to coin terms for those changes. (which may help people choose what to play and what to avoid when getting into gaming or swapping systems)

Where the enjoyment of added features to D&D to make it more survivable, and get re-rolls/roll with advantage = are a strong indication of new design goals in mechanics. Where adding no-fail rolls like in Draw Steel, and so on.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Absolutely. My thought was really just that there could be situations where a designer could have a really intentional, focused, purposeful approach to a game design that isn't apparent in the final product for whatever reason.

I believe the term for that sort of thing is "compromised design", and its usually not complimentary for a reason.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

I believe the term for that sort of thing is "compromised design", and its usually not complimentary for a reason.

Right. To be clear, I'm not endorsing it as good end product. I'm just saying that sometimes suboptimal end product is not the result of careless creative work. Sometimes Phil Spector gets the masters.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

Honestly, at most PbtA games I scream "what the hell are you doing?!" and I'm famously a big fan of the Apocalypse World.

It's very, very rarely I see a PbtA game that seems to understand how the engine works, and what it's good at. Night Witches, Undying, Urban Shadows, Monsterhearts, Monster of the Week (although I think it's overall pretty shabbily built) and... Nothing else.
...

You make me a sad panda... why is Pasion de las Pasiones not in number 1 spot? (ok ok I tease. but it is my favorite pbta system/game ever made, and what i think is a masterclass in pbta design.. so... )

And yeah, Kult: Divinity Lost is a fantastic example of a game designer not having any clue what PBTA is or how to used it.

So yeah, just "because is pbta" does not a good game it make.

 

[Campbell]

A fair of PbtA games are not the result of what I would call intentional design. You can often see it when the basic moves are basically Apocalypse World or they try to graft on subsystems that are incompatible or not well integrated with the GM Move structure (looking at you Headspace).

 

[Micah Sweet]

How do you believe the manner in which they have been suggesting it has been "dangerous" or intended to create conflict?

I didn't say the conflict was intended, just that it is more likely when such language is used.

 

[Agamon]

I agree. Modern as applies to RPG mechanics means little outside of academic discussions of gaming history, and is dangerous to boot, as people tend to associate the word with quality.

Maybe then there are modern systems? The OSR wouldn't exist to the degree it does if the systems from the 70s were of highest quality.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Maybe then there are modern systems? The OSR wouldn't exist to the degree it does if the systems from the 70s were of highest quality.

I disagree. The OSR movement started to increase accessibility to 1e (through OSRIC). The games most commonly inspiring the OSR are pretty well-regarded by OSR designers.

 

[Campbell]

I find the entire concept of general use games versus specialized games to be one of the more silly ideas in the hobby because it assumes gameplay has no real value on its own (and thus a "general use" game can be a substitute for a "specialized" game if used well). Apocalypse Keys is not a tool used to roleplay potential harbringers of the apocalypse who might bring doom upon us all - it's a game wherein we play these harbringers with particular embedded risks that uses a push your own luck mechanic to show the danger of your inner monster and get pulled back because of your bonds with your fellow omen class monsters. The mechanics aren't just tools to get there though - they set up these gameplay decisions that not just bring the setting and your characters to life but also enable gameplay where you must balance your ties to each other with progressing the mystery and dealing with the threats you're their to deal with.

I could have run the same fictional situation I used for our Draw Steel one shot and captured the archetypes pretty well in Tales of Xadia (which is a Cortex Fantasy game) but the feel and gameplay decisions would have been entirely different.

TLDR there is more to a game's design than just exploring a premise or modeling a fiction.

 

[Agamon]

I disagree. The OSR movement started to increase accessibility to 1e (through OSRIC). The games most commonly inspiring the OSR are pretty well-regarded by OSR designers.

Fair, but I also disagree. A great deal of the OSR games use what has been learned about RPGs in the years gone by. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any changes because of the perfection they are emulating.

I do get there is a general love for the old games, I share it. I didn't play 1e correctly for much of the time I ran it. And I don't mean not by the book, no one did that as we all know. I literally didn't have a PHB for the first 18 months that I played. I needed to infer things from the Basic rulebook I had lol. All that being said, it was a lot of fun. But there has been some evolution from the very first steps into the hobby.