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

[Neonchameleon]

None of that really talks to my central issue. My issue was that introducing backstory on failure interferes with prep so why bother with the prep?

The prep is meant to pin things solidly in place, Specifically the backstory and personality of the primary npcs and their relationships to each other, (and the pc's) including what they're doing and plan to do in the form of clocks. And the resources they have and can bring to bear (such as weaponry and gang size).

You need all that stuff in place so you can roleplay the npc's and decide what decisions they would make in response to events.

introducing loads of stuff that ret-cons or interferes with the above seems contradictory.

No you don't need all the prep. It's just useful.

If you look at actors preparing for a role in a TV series they don't get all (or even many) of the scripts before auditioning or shooting the first season and surprise reveals are a thing. This doesn't stop them preparing what they think is the backstory to add depth to their characters. It helps inform them how to act and react to things but only what the script writers write in the scripts is actual canon.

Prep is at the same level for the MC as it is for series actors. It's secondary canon used to inform but only what is filmed or happens is actual canon. And some actors prepare more than others but almost all good actors do some prep beyond reading the script.

 

[loverdrive]

For more comparisons, I think the following two scenarios are mostly the same in essence, just achieved through different means

Blades in the Dark Player: I want to Tinker with this lock to open it GM: sure, there's no one around so it's Controlled position; you'll get it open and nothing else: Standard effect. Roll Tinker. Player: 4! GM: just as the final pin sets with a click, you hear approaching footsteps, guards! Situation is getting Risky! What do you do?

D&D Player: I want to pick this lock GM: sure, roll with thieves tools Player: ah, shucks! 5! GM: sure, you spend ten minutes working on it fruitlessly, but at least this time lets you evaluate how tough it is: it's DC 15. Player: I try again! 23! GM: okay, you open it but... rolls for wandering monsters you hear footsteps approaching! What do you do?

 

[Thomas Shey]

Hit points have been around long before "6-8 times a day" was a thing, and you can absolutely use them as part of a sim mechanic provided they are used in tandem with a long-term injury system of some kind. In that case they become mostly stamina points outside of the occasional need for contact, like poison. The reason hit points are a problem is because it's impossible to actually be injured, and because everything that can possibly happen to you heals overnight. Deal with that and you can go a long toward hit points making sense.

Even without modern approaches to healing you had other elements that worked really, really oddly with the hit point model (falling gets (excuse the pun) beat to death but it was always jarring, and healing spells in no edition really worked like they seemed like they should). A stamina model helps, but you have to do more than just rename it and add a long term injury system; you have to go through the system and address the other areas that look wierd or they're liable to look even weirder.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Even without modern approaches to healing you had other elements that worked really, really oddly with the hit point model (falling gets (excuse the pun) beat to death but it was always jarring, and healing spells in no edition really worked like they seemed like they should). A stamina model helps, but you have to do more than just rename it and add a long term injury system; you have to go through the system and address the other areas that look wierd or they're liable to look even weirder.

Sure, there's more to do, and fixing healing is part of it. I like a proportional model myself.

 

[thefutilist]

[snip]

No, all I need for an NPC is their current motivations and current game stats. And half the time, the stats are overprep.

Giving them history is not a benefit most of the time. If they're not a major NPC, I only need their goals for the current scene or adventure. I'm far better off with an image than a history.

Then again, most of my NPCs aren't there for story, but for some level of realism. They're nameless and faceless unless and until the PCs interact with them. Most have very evident motivations for their place... The baker in a second millennium CE middle eastern setting isn't interested in buying your stuff, but is interested in selling you bread, getting thieves' hands chopped off, and not missing daily prayers. Not of need in that order. Transplant him to Arrakis in the Dune setting, one of the "city fremen", and you have much the same... For their role, that's enough on motivation. An image, and the NPC stats needed, and done.

Even a Major NPC, I mostly don't need their history save as it relates to their presence in the current story.

Then again, I've run John Wick's Blood and Honor, which is notable for many things, but the most important is that no character is immune from changes imposed by others in play. No NPC planning past their current state is useful; further, if you leave a blank on the character sheet of an NPC, players interacting with them can (and in my experience, will) fill them in. Its a great game; same engine as the slightly more popular Houses of the Blooded. Introduce an incomplete NPC, and you risk them being something you never imagined... but at the same time, players can, and sometimes do, add NPC villains for you.

A few things:

What I've found as a player and GM in a game like Apocalypse World (or more trad games generally), is that changing character backstory from what I thought it was is unsatisfying.

In those games I want to advocate for a characters worldview. How does their worldview work out for them? That's the important bit to me, the central core that determines the meaning of play. Changing it up is...eh. Not conducive to emergent stories about human meaning, in my opinion.

Which doesn't mean the technique itself is no good. For instance Showdown relies very heavily on that exact dynamic being in play (are you who you thought you were?) but all the other mechanics interface with that to allow thematic decisions. I've found in Showdown you end up playing the board as it were, as opposed to just your character. There's a type of remove you have with them. Which makes sense because in the end it's you the player who decides whether they live or die. Based on whether you think they deserve to live or die.

Or Inspectres. Same deal. Your character can have attributes thrust on them mid-play. There's the same sense of playing the board as opposed to world-view advocacy. Its mechanics also seem to support this far better than PbtA games generally do when played that way.

Is it just preference? maybe but I'm not sure.


@Neonchameleon I mean from memory the text says three things about prep. It says 'it gives you interesting stuff to say.' Which might fit or infer your interpretation about the canonicity of the prep.

It also says 'binding decisions' and 'prep demands', which clearly do not fit what you're saying and state the opposite. Clocks only seem to work if they're canon.

But to some degree it's besides the point. I don't think you get good gameplay by following a text. A lot depends on assumptions going in. For instance I absolutely reject roleplaying having anything to do with theatrical improv. On the other hand, if you're coming from that point of view then your interpretation is obviously working out for you. I know for instance that Brandon Leon-Gambetta approaches PbtA that way. Including stuff like 'no and' 'yes but', that sort of stuff. Or the idea that we're really passing story control. Both those concepts really turn me off, so it stands to reason I'm going to take a more 'trad' approach. At least as it pertains to PbtA.

To me the important part isn't necessarily which one is better, or which one is more correct according to the text, it's that there is a difference and it's the result of something more fundamental that speaks to different approaches to play.

 

[Neonchameleon]

@Neonchameleon I mean from memory the text says three things about prep. It says 'it gives you interesting stuff to say.' Which might fit or infer your interpretation about the canonicity of the prep.

It also says 'binding decisions' and 'prep demands', which clearly do not fit what you're saying and state the opposite. Clocks only seem to work if they're canon.

Once something has become a clock then it is canon. Before it appears on the table it's still draft. Not actually canon but still your working notes that you shouldn't change without good reason.

But to some degree it's besides the point. I don't think you get good gameplay by following a text.

Then what's the point of the text? It won't cover everything but the point of the text is to try to lead you to good bameplay.

A lot depends on assumptions going in. For instance I absolutely reject roleplaying having anything to do with theatrical improv.

Why do you absolutely reject it? It's definitely a thing. And IMO tabletop roleplaying is massively superior for storytelling than theatrical improv because "yes but" is much better for storytelling than "yes and". But Apocalypse World is informed by improv but is in reality pretty trad, trying to gain the benefits of both and allow both traditions to work together.

 

[Aldarc]

Here are contemporary trends that I see in terms of modern approaches to TTRPG mechanics:

• Fiction First Gaming: this was something of a reaction against what some in the hobby saw as mechanics first approaches in 3e D&D and 4e D&D. (Whether or not you agree with that characterization of these games is not the point.) We see the pivot back to fiction first with things more in the indie scene, both on the narrative side (e.g., PbtA, Fate, FitD, etc.) and OSR side. I think that Mike Mearls tried to also move things back more towards fiction first with 5e D&D - keeping in mind that he had cited Dungeon World in this regard while working on 5e D&D - but the results are IMHO questionable.
• Freeform Narrative Tags for PCs: These are mechanics like aspects in Fate, traits in Cortex and Fabula Ultima, backgrounds in 13th Age, tags in City of Mist/Legend in the Mist, and experiences in Daggerheart. I mentioned these earlier.
• Mechanically Reducing GM Workload: Reducing the mental overhang for running the game on the GM side of things through things like rolling random charts in OSR games, NPC/difficulty generation in Cypher System, removing map and key play in Narrative games, etc. Were things like random charts there before modern games? Yes. But I also think that we see them now for the purpose of making running the game easier for GMs. Even Advantage/Disadvantage help in this regard.
• Anti-Railroad Revolutionaries: It's the advice. Prep scenarios, not plots. It's about "jaquaysing the dungeon." It's the randomized tables. You see it in narrative games and OSR games. The reemphasis on sandbox games. It's about draw maps, leave blanks. It's in the play to find out. All of these design elements are not coincidental. These are principles and mechanics that have been incorporated into the writing and design as a means to resist railroading.
• Consequential Rolls: Rolling is not for uncertainty but for consequences, meaningful situations, and called for with some rhyme and reason. Even 5e D&D says not to call for a roll unless there are meaningful consequences for failure. Even in OSR spheres, where some are okay with "nothing happens to the door," a roll may advance the timer, risk the wandering monster, cause you to lose torchlight, etc.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Here are contemporary trends that I see in terms of modern approaches to TTRPG mechanics:

• Fiction First Gaming: this was something of a reaction against what some in the hobby saw as mechanics first approaches in 3e D&D and 4e D&D. (Whether or not you agree with that characterization of these games is not the point.) We see the pivot back to fiction first with things more in the indie scene, both on the narrative side (e.g., PbtA, Fate, FitD, etc.) and OSR side. I think that Mike Mearls tried to also move things back more towards fiction first with 5e D&D - keeping in mind that he had cited Dungeon World in this regard while working on 5e D&D - but the results are IMHO questionable.
• Freeform Narrative Tags for PCs: These are mechanics like aspects in Fate, traits in Cortex and Fabula Ultima, backgrounds in 13th Age, tags in City of Mist/Legend in the Mist, and experiences in Daggerheart. I mentioned these earlier.
• Mechanically Reducing GM Workload: Reducing the mental overhang for running the game on the GM side of things through things like rolling random charts in OSR games, NPC/difficulty generation in Cypher System, removing map and key play in Narrative games, etc. Were things like random charts there before modern games? Yes. But I also think that we see them now for the purpose of making running the game easier for GMs. Even Advantage/Disadvantage help in this regard.
• Anti-Railroad Revolutionaries: It's the advice. Prep scenarios, not plots. It's about "jaquaysing the dungeon." It's the randomized tables. You see it in narrative games and OSR games. The reemphasis on sandbox games. It's about draw maps, leave blanks. It's in the play to find out. All of these design elements are not coincidental. These are principles and mechanics that have been incorporated into the writing and design as a means to resist railroading.
• Consequential Rolls: Rolling is not for uncertainty but for consequences, meaningful situations, and called for with some rhyme and reason. Even 5e D&D says not to call for a roll unless there are meaningful consequences for failure. Even in OSR spheres, where some are okay with "nothing happens to the door," a roll may advance the timer, risk the wandering monster, cause you to lose torchlight, etc.

The only one of those I'm completely on board with is "anti-railroad revolutionaries. The rest are moving away from my preferences.

 

[Aldarc]

The only one of those I'm completely on board with is "anti-railroad revolutionaries. The rest are moving away from my preferences.

So would this be closer to your preferences?

• Mechanics-First Gaming
• Your Character's Identity Has Zero Mechanical Impact
• Mechanically Increasing GM Workload
• Anti-Railroad Revolutionaries
• Inconsequential Rolls

Whatever your preferences are, your preferences remain valid.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So would this be closer to your preferences?

• Mechanics-First Gaming
• Your Character's Identity Has Zero Mechanical Impact
• Mechanically Increasing GM Workload
• Anti-Railroad Revolutionaries
• Inconsequential Rolls

The way all those are expressed by modern games does not work for me. Fiction first as expressed by narrative games is very troublesome to me for example. Nice "gotcha" though.