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

[CleverNickName]

I'm a bit puzzled about the bold since that stuff - grids, battle mats, minis, etc. - has been there since its wargaming roots.

I was seeing race and class treated as separate in 1975 (that races were to be treated as quasi-classes may have been the intent but it was muddy enough in OD&D that after Greyhawk came out I never saw anyone treat it that way), and while dedicated mechanics for grids wasn't present, there was plenty of use of battle mats and either tokens or miniatures by the same time. Wasn't like this was a game that wasn't fussy about movement, range and things like area effects after all.

Like I said: I cut my gaming teeth on the Red Box rules, which didn't have rules for grids, battle mats, and minis.

I'm sharing my own experiences and perceptions, not trying to mandate what other folks should consider "modern."

 

[Gorgon Zee]

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.

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.

In an early post, I suggested that, for me, "modern mechanics" pretty much menat "mechanics not meant to simulate a reality". It is encouraging to see that this aligns well with the text you have highlighted! Some reasoning is for narrative, some for gameplay, some to help everyone participate -- but none is for simulation.

So, really, I am still feeling that, although any broad generalization is well, broad, you could do worse than:

Modern Mechanics are ones not designed to simulate.​

 

[Aldarc]

Like I said: I cut my gaming teeth on the Red Box rules, which didn't have rules for grids, battle mats, and minis.

I'm sharing my own experiences and perceptions, not trying to mandate what other folks should consider "modern."

Fair. But how long did you spend cutting your teeth on the Red Box though? I cut my teeth on D&D 3e but I was learning and playing other games after about three to five years. You make it sound like you were teething for over 15 years.

 

[CleverNickName]

Fair. But how long did you spend cutting your teeth on the Red Box though? I cut my teeth on D&D 3e but I was learning and playing other games after about three to five years. You make it sound like you were teething for over 15 years.

From summer of 1986 until about 2000....so fourteen years, minus a few years while I was at university and didn't have any time to play games. I wrote more about it in other threads, but the gist of it is that I started with BECM, bounced off of 2E, and then went all-in on 3.X in 2000.

So...guilty as charged? I guess?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

In an early post, I suggested that, for me, "modern mechanics" pretty much menat "mechanics not meant to simulate a reality". It is encouraging to see that this aligns well with the text you have highlighted! Some reasoning is for narrative, some for gameplay, some to help everyone participate -- but none is for simulation.

So, really, I am still feeling that, although any broad generalization is well, broad, you could do worse than:

Modern Mechanics are ones not designed to simulate.​

I don't know that this is a ... modern preoccupation?

A few brief words are necessary to insure that the reader has actually obtained a game form which he or she desires. Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any realism (in the author’s opinion an absurd effort at best considering the topic!). It does little to attempt to simulate anything either. ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek to use imagination and creativity. This is not to say that where it does not interfere with the flow of the game that the highest degree of realism hasn‘t been attempted, but neither is a serious approach to play discouraged. In all cases, however, the reader should understand that AD&D is designed to be an amusing and diverting pastime, something which can fill a few hours or consume endless days, as the participants desire, but in no case something to be taken too seriously. For fun, excitement, and captivating fantasy, AD&D is unsurpassed. As a realistic simulation of things from the realm of make-believe, or even as a reflection of medieval or ancient warfare or culture or society, it can be deemed only a dismal failure. Readers who seek the latter must search elsewhere. Those who desire to create and populate imaginary worlds with larger-than-life heroes and villains, who seek relaxation with a fascinating game, and who generally believe games should be fun, not work, will hopefully find this system to their taste.

 

[payn]

I don't know that this is a ... modern preoccupation?

A few brief words are necessary to insure that the reader has actually obtained a game form which he or she desires. Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any realism (in the author’s opinion an absurd effort at best considering the topic!). It does little to attempt to simulate anything either. ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek to use imagination and creativity. This is not to say that where it does not interfere with the flow of the game that the highest degree of realism hasn‘t been attempted, but neither is a serious approach to play discouraged. In all cases, however, the reader should understand that AD&D is designed to be an amusing and diverting pastime, something which can fill a few hours or consume endless days, as the participants desire, but in no case something to be taken too seriously. For fun, excitement, and captivating fantasy, AD&D is unsurpassed. As a realistic simulation of things from the realm of make-believe, or even as a reflection of medieval or ancient warfare or culture or society, it can be deemed only a dismal failure. Readers who seek the latter must search elsewhere. Those who desire to create and populate imaginary worlds with larger-than-life heroes and villains, who seek relaxation with a fascinating game, and who generally believe games should be fun, not work, will hopefully find this system to their taste.

Its an admitted broad generalization so not prone to being true across all time and games. This blurb itself is just one example from many RPGs of the time. Though, its interesting to note that the discussion was happening even back then so the two (of many) schools of thought have been argued for a long time.

Battletech is currently going through a playtest for rules updates. One of the big arguments is moving away from abstract simulation and into more game play focus. Longtime fans of the 40 year old game system are butting heads with folks that want to take it into a more gamist direction. Many of the arguments I read about back in those days are rearing their heads with folks who were not even born yet today! suddenly...

 

[thefutilist]

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.

I'm honestly not sure what people mean when they say 'play to find out what happens', I've seen it used in a load of different ways. Same with Sandbox really, two people can say they run a sandbox but recoil in horror when they learn what the other one means.

To use a previous example. If three characters go and fight six characters at the abandoned water works, then both GURPS and Apocalypse World give us a method of finding out what happens.

It's only the introduction of tech like fudging the dice or suddenly deciding other people show up out of nowhere, that changes 'find out what happens' to the GM forcing the issue.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't know that this is a ... modern preoccupation?

A few brief words are necessary to insure that the reader has actually obtained a game form which he or she desires. Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any realism (in the author’s opinion an absurd effort at best considering the topic!). It does little to attempt to simulate anything either. ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek to use imagination and creativity. This is not to say that where it does not interfere with the flow of the game that the highest degree of realism hasn‘t been attempted, but neither is a serious approach to play discouraged. In all cases, however, the reader should understand that AD&D is designed to be an amusing and diverting pastime, something which can fill a few hours or consume endless days, as the participants desire, but in no case something to be taken too seriously. For fun, excitement, and captivating fantasy, AD&D is unsurpassed. As a realistic simulation of things from the realm of make-believe, or even as a reflection of medieval or ancient warfare or culture or society, it can be deemed only a dismal failure. Readers who seek the latter must search elsewhere. Those who desire to create and populate imaginary worlds with larger-than-life heroes and villains, who seek relaxation with a fascinating game, and who generally believe games should be fun, not work, will hopefully find this system to their taste.

To be honest, I've never really believed him on that. I'm not sure he did either.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

I'm honestly not sure what people mean when they say 'play to find out what happens', I've seen it used in a load of different ways. Same with Sandbox really, two people can say they run a sandbox but recoil in horror when they learn what the other one means.

To use a previous example. If three characters go and fight six characters at the abandoned water works, then both GURPS and Apocalypse World give us a method of finding out what happens.

It's only the introduction of tech like fudging the dice or suddenly deciding other people show up out of nowhere, that changes 'find out what happens' to the GM forcing the issue.

Ok, so none of what you described is "play to find out what happens"

What it means is "The GM ALSO has no idea what will occur next in ANYTHING - especially the plot and scenes and events." This goes back to my earlier posts about Modern Mechanics are limiting the GM, rules to tell the GM "No, the players runs this part, and you get no ruling in it".

What PBTA does is what GURPS could never do, by design - let the engine make the events and plots for you.

Examples:
- In Monster Hearts you can roll to interact with someone, and even attack them - only for the rules to tell you that your character is now infatuated or aroused by the enemy, and you are expected to run with that.

- In Passion de las Pasiones, a move allows a player to state that someone is lying (anyone, PC, NPC, etc) about anything, even plots and events in front of them, and they can state the 'actual truth'. If they make their roll, they are right and everyone else was lying (wrong). So plots must adjust and go from this new truth.

- In Apocalypse World there are several moves that add to the fiction, the rules state that this NPC will now betray you, and its only up to the MC as to where and when. Sure they may be an ally or a lover, but they will betray you!

- In most any PBTA game, the moves describe what happens as a result of your drama. They are interpreted by the players, but they can add all kinds of things to a game - including enemies that were not there before, locations that were never placed by the GM, and even plots that take on a life of their own as a myriad of Moves alter and change and update the truths of the plot - even unto retconning previous truths!

GURPS is "task resolution". The GM presents things to do, has some idea of the threats or risks involved, and when you roll, it only tells you one thing = you did the task or you failed the task. That's it, full stop. The Gm may choose what happens next, but the roll didn't tell them what to do, only that the player did or didn't do the task that was already in front of them. Nothing was found out or discovered, it was just "resolved".

PBTA is a "Drama engine". The game moves introduce new features in the game, and add plots when there were none. PBTA has no skills, and considers nothing a 'task'. You are making dice roll in terms of 'overall goal' or 'interacting with a plot.' There is nothing to pass or fail. Instead it is all about "and here is extra stuff to create the story and where it goes next."

 

[Aldarc]

In an early post, I suggested that, for me, "modern mechanics" pretty much menat "mechanics not meant to simulate a reality". It is encouraging to see that this aligns well with the text you have highlighted! Some reasoning is for narrative, some for gameplay, some to help everyone participate -- but none is for simulation.

So, really, I am still feeling that, although any broad generalization is well, broad, you could do worse than:

Modern Mechanics are ones not designed to simulate.​

Its an admitted broad generalization so not prone to being true across all time and games. This blurb itself is just one example from many RPGs of the time. Though, its interesting to note that the discussion was happening even back then so the two (of many) schools of thought have been argued for a long time.

The difference may also be the angle which Gygax and Spencer (or whoever wrote that part of DH) is coming from. Gygax is coming against Realism-Simulationism more from the wargaming and challenge-based angle. Spencer is coming against Realism-Simulationism, I suspect, more from a Narrativist perspective.