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

[SableWyvern]

I mean… if you were to buy a Tomb Raider video game, you’d likely have a good idea at this point what to expect. I don’t see why that would be significantly different for an RPG.

I can only speak for myself, but the way I approach, assess and use RPGs is completely and utterly different to the way I approach and assess computer games. I use them in entirely different ways, to achieve entirely different ends.

I don't think I'm especially unusual in this, and when things move between media -- stage, page, big screen, small screen, console/PC, RPG, comic, etc -- I fully expect that decisions are going to have to made about what things need to carry across and how to go about it presenting them in this new medium. Further, I expect that different people are likely to have very different ideas about how to best go about that.

Even a sequel in the same medium, while it is likely to be much easier to predict how it will feel, can sometimes diverge significantly.

I think a Tomb Raider RPG could be approached in a whole host of ways, and the idea that there is one specific set of appropriate expectations is completely alien to the way I look at RPG (or, as mentioned, moving between media in general). If I decide I want to run a Tomb Raider game, I'll make my own assessment as to what I want, and then see what best fits my needs. What I absolutely won't do is assume that just because a Tomb Raider game exists, it will work for me or match the experience I want in a Tomb Raider RPG.

In what way do you think that the mechanics drive play?

I do not want to reopen conservatism in gaming again, but the whole "success with a complication" as a central feature is one obvious thing to me. The mechanics are explicitly telling you, "the game needs to move forward and something interesting must happen at this point."

At a more basic level, the philosophy that "nothing much happens; the status quo is maintained" is an unacceptable outcome -- instead, any interaction with the mechanics must happen in such a way that doing so moves the game forward somehow.

I could also see a situation where the results of mechanical interactions modify a metacurrency, and when that metacurrency is at certain levels various things happen that push the character to action, or to make tough decisions or whatever.

I'm not going to be great at giving a more detailed answer, as it's not my sort of gaming, but on numerous occasions I've seen @pemerton describe what he likes about mechanics driving play, and provided examples.

And would they be the only factor?

Certainly not, it just seems to me to be the most prevalent and consistent thing that's coming up.

What drives play in a more traditional system?

The participants drive play via the decisions they make. They use the mechanisms as required to resolve uncertainty, and then make more decisions based on the outcomes. The key difference being that the game mechanics themselves aren't intentionally being built to generate complications, challenges, dilemmas, demand action or what-have-you.

In a traditional game about political intrigue and fear of betrayal, the players make decisions, the rules held provide outcomes, and everyone is just expected to play along with the premise. The rules themselves don't generate intrigue and fear of betrayal, they just assess what happens in an environment where those things exist.

In a modern game, the mechanics might directly say, "you now need to make a hard choice: do you remain loyal, at a cost to yourself, or betray your patron in this matter?" Again, I'm not greatly positioned to elaborate on how all these mechanics might work, but my feeling is they would be designed specifically to create intrigue and fear of betrayal.

Note that, the participants' decisions actually drive play in both situations -- I'm not saying this responsibility is completely offloaded to the mechanics. It would be slightly more accurate to say that in the modern version, the mechanics mandate that play is always driven in the direction of the theme, instead of leaving it up to the players to ensure that happens.

And, for the third or fourth time, I will again point out that I'm no expert on these design principles, so don't expect my specific examples to necessarily be spot on.

 

[mamba]

I mean… if you were to buy a Tomb Raider video game, you’d likely have a good idea at this point what to expect. I don’t see why that would be significantly different for an RPG.

for a Tomb Raider RPG it would not be different, I don’t think that is a wide enough scope however to keep things interesting, that is my point

 

[mamba]

And playbooks are just the modern incarnation of classes.

not sure, they replace what used to be the class sure, but that doesn’t mean they are all that similar. The class defines abilities the character has, the playbook goes beyond that, it tries to drive a narrative / define the narrative role of the character.

The class-character can also attempt stuff that is not covered by an ability of their class. The playbook one has to stick to the moves of its playbook. That is why I mentioned TRRPG as a giant state machine earlier

 

[Aldarc]

If you’re looking for a TTRPG that tells heroic fantasy stories with a modern approach to mechanics, focusing on both epic battles and the emotional narrative of the characters who fight in them, you’ve come to the right place.

I am trying to parse this statement from Daggerheart in the context of the game. What does this mean for Daggerheart? How do these designers understand "a modern approach to mechanics" in terms of what they have designed? I will also note that they do not say "modern mechanics" or "modern TTRPG mechanics." The text explicitly says "a modern approach to mechanics," emphasis in bold and italics mine. This is to say, it's really a question of how the game mechanics are approached moreso than the mechanics themselves.

Here is what I think that they mean by their statement. (IMHO, whether we agree or disagree with that is a separate matter.)

WHAT KIND OF ROLEPLAYING GAME IS DAGGERHEART?

Daggerheart is a heroic, narrative-focused experience that features combat as a prominent aspect of play. The system facilitates emotionally engaging, player-driven stories punctuated by exciting battles and harrowing challenges.

The game takes a fiction-first approach, encouraging players and GMs to act in good faith with one another and focus on the story they’re telling rather than the complexity of the mechanics. The rules provide structure when it’s unclear how actions or moments will resolve within that story. The system takes a free-flowing approach to combat to avoid slowing the game down with granular rounds, and it doesn’t rely on gridbased movement for maps and minis. These aspects coalesce to create a game that allows for the terrain and map-building that miniature-based systems are known for while facilitating a streamlined, narrative experience for players.

If you’re looking for a TTRPG that tells heroic fantasy stories with a modern approach to mechanics, focusing on both epic battles and the emotional narrative of the characters who fight in them, you’ve come to the right place.

Daggerheart also utilizes an asymmetrical design, meaning that it plays differently for the GM than it does for the players. Players roll two twelve-sided dice for their PCs’ standard actions, including their attacks. The GM can make most moves without dice, but they roll a twenty-sided die for adversary moves that require a roll. This asymmetrical design is intended to help all participants contribute to a memorable experience for everyone at the table.

IMO, a lot of their design intent is in the italicized bold.

Apart from that, there are likely other design elements of the game intended by "a modern approach to mechanics." I think that one is an approach to game design and mechanics intended to ease player onboarding. I think that this entails things like player cards and power loadouts. These are tactile elements for the game. They help reduce the need (and time) for players to consult and reference the book for play. It intentionally constrains the number of PC abilities that players need to remember for playing their characters. What the mechanics are isn't the point. How they are being approached and for what purpose is.

Likewise, Experiences in Daggerheart help forego the need for a formal skill system or creating a skill list. It also gives players a means of mechanical self-expression for their PCs. But I also think that this ties into the earlier point in the above about "a streamlined, narrative experience for players."

 

[SableWyvern]

not sure, they replace what used to be the class sure, but that doesn’t mean they are all that similar. The class defines abilities the character has, the playbook goes beyond that, it tries to drive a narrative / define the narrative role of the character.

Interesting that you say this.

I came to like race as class (especially ACKS style, with multiple classes for each race) when I embraced the idea that (in a race-as-class type system) your class is not merely what you do, it's what you are.

 

[thefutilist]

I replied to a post about "control over the fiction". I didn't know you meant worldbuilding.

Players in classic D&D, if played in the manner described by Gygax in the conclusion to his PHB, exercise a lot of control over what scenes/situations are presented. Exercising this sort of control is a key element of "skilled play".

EDIT: Players in Apocalypse World have control over the PC's actions, thoughts and memories. The rulebook is clear on this. You can't work out if a game is "modern" or not, nor whether it is the GM or the players who drive play, just by looking at these issues of authority over particular bits of the fiction. You need to look at the actual process of play, particularly on the GM side.

This is also the way I see it. Although your view may be more nuanced than mine.

It could also be that there are two camps or approaches to rpgs and we're really talking about what separates them.

I'd like to think that the three hall marks of post-Forge design are:


Intentionality and also therefore

Integration of mechanics to fulfil purpose

A rejection of 'mindless' accretion and tradition.


But it may simply be that I (we) don't buy into certain principles of the other camp. I'm thinking:


Adventure paths, rejected on either aesthetic grounds or on the basis of agency

The idea of sim, rejected on the basis we don't think it makes sense.

Sim rejection is also interesting because you could (and probably do) have groups that identify as sim but the actual techniques used are basically Narrativist. In which case the rejection is far more complicated. The big difference really being that Narrativism with a modern ethos finds game state consequences and disclaiming decision making a fundamental part of conscious design, where it may be intuitive and unconsidered in Narrativism encountered in the wild.

Porting certain approaches back to older games. Such as what you're doing with Traveller. Suggests it's very specific intentional approaches that are legit rather than intentionality itself. I mean Robin Laws approach to good games mastering (for instance) is intentional, it's just one we reject for being stupid.

 

[Neonchameleon]

not sure, they replace what used to be the class sure, but that doesn’t mean they are all that similar. The class defines abilities the character has, the playbook goes beyond that, it tries to drive a narrative / define the narrative role of the character.

The class-character can also attempt stuff that is not covered by an ability of their class. The playbook one has to stick to the moves of its playbook. That is why I mentioned TRRPG as a giant state machine earlier

This is complete and utter nonsense to the point it undermines any credibility you have. As the iconic versions I'll compare D&D 5e and Apocalypse World here.

Both a class based character and a playbook based character can accomplish a wide range of things under the generic rules of the game. Anyone can attempt to look round a room and see what they can see independently of their class; in D&D you look round a room and roll a Perception check; in Apocalypse World you try to Read A Sitch. And there is a broad and pretty comprehensive but not entirely exhaustive list of basic moves anyone can do just as there is a broad but not exhaustive list of skills.

And if something is something ordinary people can do but isn't covered by a skill/basic move? That's what the DM/MC is for. Neither game gives you much on how to e.g. build a fortified encampment

Class abilities and playbook moves can make you go above and beyond what a normal character can do with these basic moves. For example anyone can attack someone with a weapon - but the fighter class gets Extra Attack(s) as a class feature because fighters are good at this to the point of being as dangerous as multiple normal people. And likewise anyone can attack someone with a weapon in Apocalypse World but only the Gunlugger has the optional "NOT TO BE F#$£%D WITH" move in their playbook to make them as dangerous as multiple normal people.

And some class or playbook abilities give abilities normal people just don't have. For example an Aberrant Mind gets Detect Thoughts and no amount of thinking hard or reciting mystic words by (most) fighters will let them Detect Thoughts; they just don't have that ability. Meanwhile in Apocalypse World the creepy psychic Brainer can set In Brain Puppet Strings - but most other playbooks don't so they can't.

The key difference between classes and Apocalypse World playbooks is that playbooks are partly a social thing while all 5e characters are assumed to be wandering adventurers. For example the Chopper is the leader of the local motorcycle gang. Some of their moves include working out how it's in/causes trouble this week and how to control the violent thugs. And they can and will set their gang on people. They are one person and their gang will (normally) do as they say. Meanwhile the Hocus is a cult leader and has a very different relationship with their cult.

 

[Neonchameleon]

But it may simply be that I (we) don't buy into certain principles of the other camp. I'm thinking:


Adventure paths, rejected on either aesthetic grounds or on the basis of agency

This lets me circle back to a previous claim on the thread. Agency is not a new argument or goal. It's simply that the post-Forge method to enable agency ("Play to find out what happens") is different to the trad one; the trad one was a sandbox rather than a railroad with a disinterested (but not uninterested) referee. A hexcrawl not an adventure path.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Interesting that you say this.

I came to like race as class (especially ACKS style, with multiple classes for each race) when I embraced the idea that (in a race-as-class type system) your class is not merely what you do, it's what you are.

Meanwhile the Playbook is who you are right now including your social situation. And some of the best climactic moments in Apocalypse World come from changing your playbook.

One textbook example in this would be the Chopper (gang boss) settling down a little and becoming a Hardholder (settlement boss); some of the Chopper levelling up options explicitly referenced the Hardholder to set this up and when you level up enough you unlock the option to change your playbook.

A second textbook example would be a Hardholder being left for dead and coming back as a Gunlugger (solo combat monster) intent on revenge; when Life Becomes Untenable you have an opportunity to change your playbook.

 

[mamba]

I came to like race as class (especially ACKS style, with multiple classes for each race) when I embraced the idea that (in a race-as-class type system) your class is not merely what you do, it's what you are.

I never liked race as class, I can live with each race have a handful of unique classes though I guess (never tried)

Race only in a very wide context is what you are if humans are anything to go by however. Certainly in a way that encompasses all (A)D&D classes