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

[mamba]

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.

I don’t see anything you wrote here contradict anything I wrote…

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure, but couldn’t this also apply to a more generic game? I mean… I know GURPS covers tons of stuff across many books… but would you just keep buying new books and adding new rules systems?

...Yeah. I do that with every game I like. Finances, allowing, why wouldn't I?

In what way do you think that the mechanics drive play? And would they be the only factor? What drives play in a more traditional system?

For me, play is driven by the player's actions through their PCs, moderated through the settings qualities and events.

 

[SableWyvern]

Sure, but couldn’t this also apply to a more generic game? I mean… I know GURPS covers tons of stuff across many books… but would you just keep buying new books and adding new rules systems?

I missed this question earlier. I'm not sure exactly what you mean here but, yes, I do keep buying new books and adding new systems as I need to. Pretty much every game I pick up I do so in order to meet a very specific need or interest. On the other hand, I'm not a completionist, and I won't buy something if I don't see it filling a need, adding something of value at the table or in assisting in bringing something else to the table.

I come up with an idea for a campaign. It may be that I want to run a specific setting or system, or some combination of the two. Whatever it is, I make a decision about what materials I need, and then I acquire them, then I tailor them to my exact requirements. I will generally run something for around 18 months, then move onto the next thing. Most systems I use get used once, for one specific campaign, and then they're put away and never used again. I picked up GURPS to run X-Com, I used it to run X-Com, now it sits on my shelf.

 

[Aldarc]

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.

I'm cool with that so long as you have a single human class.

 

[SableWyvern]

I'm cool with that so long as you have a single human class.

I prefer the opposite -- multiple classes for humans, for dwarves, for gnomes, for elves, fpr cockroach people or whatever races are allowed. The thing that makes it work for me is that an elven enchanter isn't just a human wizard with some elvish racial traits, it's a genuinely elven perspective on magic use. A gnomish bulwark isn't a human fighter with some gnomish traits, it's a perspective on gnomish warrior culture. So on, and so forth.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I don’t see anything you wrote here contradict anything I wrote…

This was what you wrote:

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.

There is no sense in which it is true. Playbook characters are every bit as free to attempt things not covered by their playbook but possible to ordinary or slightly extraordinary people as class based ones.

And if you meant about trying to do not general things but things for other classes it's easier for playbook characters to poach moves from arbitrary other playbooks than it is to poach abilities from other classes. Every class has two "take a move from another playbook" picks as level up options. Meanwhile multiclassing for any but the most low level abilities is an immense investment.

In good faith I can not come up with a reading of your claim that is not egregiously false.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm cool with that so long as you have a single human class.

I'm of the opinion firstly that all classes should have "Adventuring" added to their name; an academic wizard master of portals should have a very different casting profile to an adventuring wizard.

I'm also in favour of non-mandatory racial classes as a world building conceit. An Elf class is weird - but an Average Elf Adventurer class (shortened to "elf") being a noble scion with training in blade and spell and on their gap decade or the Average Halfling Adventurer being a roguish ne'er do well who finds their extended family too much is decent world building. This in no way prevents elf rogues or Halfling wizards but they are incredibly rare.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

This was visible even in OD&D once you got out of the most basic classes; things like rangers and druids were always pretty clearly as much about who you were as what you did.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

This was visible even in OD&D once you got out of the most basic classes; things like rangers and druids were always pretty clearly as much about who you were as what you did.

Agreed. After you got past the first two archetypes (Fighter, Magic User), all the classes were about who you were. While we have tried to retcon the other classes in hindsight (the Cleric was just "the original gish," or the Thief was just "the original skill monkey,") that's not accurate. Each was a specific embodiment of an who you were.

ASSASSIN (Blackmoor) (originally played by Allan Hammock)
You kill people.

BARD (The Strategic Review v. 2 #1)
A mix of a skald, a bald, and a minstrel.

CLERIC (Men & Magic) (Bishop Carr first played by Mike Carr)
Based on Vampire Hunters (Van Helsing/Hammer Horror) slightly modified by Gygax (Bishop Odo).

DRUID (Eldritch Wizardry)
The '70s understanding of the Roman's understanding of the Celts (with the '70s environmental sheen).

ILLUSIONIST (The Strategic Review v. 1 #4,)
Peter Aronson really liked illusions, and wanted a spellcaster that did illusions.

MONK (Blackmoor)
Brian Blume wanted to be Remo Williams.

PALADIN (Greyhawk)
Gygax really liked Holger Carlson in Three Hearts and Three Lions.

RANGER (The Strategic Review v.1 #2)
Joe Fischer read the new Paladin class, and was like, "Yes, but I wanna be Aragorn."

THIEF (Great Plains Game Players Newsletter #9)
Originally created to be a "box man" (Wagner/Switzer) and reported to Gygax, Gygax added a few details from Vance and Zelazny (Cugel / Jack) and switched from a spell-slot system to percentiles because Gygax.

I'd argue that every single class after the original duo was specialized and that the only difference is between classes that were specifically designed after a fictional character (Cleric, Monk, Paladin, Ranger) and classes that were designed to model more general fictional gestalts (Assassin, Bard, Druid, Illusionist), with the Thief being a mixed case.

 

[Umbran]

This is complete and utter nonsense to the point it undermines any credibility you have.

Mod note:
This personal jab of an opening is... not good for you. It suggests to us that you are willing to tear folks down to be seen as "correct", and to heck about how people who disagree might feel.

So, dial it back, please.