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

[thefutilist]

Nice worldview... but the reality is a lot of game designs have been influenced by Theatrical Improv...
Such as most everything by D. Vincent Baker, Meg Baker, or half the Forge-inspired games.
"Yes, and…/yes, but…" is standard for theatrical improv. Anywhere you see that, you're seeing theatrical improv's influence.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Anyone else interested who is reading this can check the primary sources for themselves.

 

[Campbell]

It is very true that current trends in design have historical antecedents. What makes it a trend is its pervasiveness. Many of things we're seeing in more mainstream designs have their roots in games that were outside the mainstream 30+ years ago. There are also many techniques that fell out of fashion during the 90s like reaction rolls, random encounters and the like that are seeing a return to form (usually in a more streamlined form).

 

[aramis erak]

This is getting tiring and a little frustrating, Aramis. Are you reading my post or not before you respond? I acknowledge this point in my original post. I even highlighted this exact point in my previous post. There is a certain point where it feels like you aren't doing even basic due diligence by actually reading my post.

Being blunt: I'm saying the OSR shouldn't be considered Modern as a clade, and few games using the OSR lables really do much for the play-loop nor for GMing ease, and tables in play as part of it? Not evidence of modernity. Not even requisite for modernity...

And that the novel use you claim isn't novel.

Sorry you didn't pick up on that, but I can't control what you do, or do not, pick up upon. I can only try to make my point as best I can. I guess I was too subtle.

I find, myself, nothing says "80's Heatbreaker" better than books of tables... The best of which I find wonderful for prep — they don't speed things, either, in my experience – they often take longer to use; the question is whether the outcome for time is better than free creation of the same duration. And they're no more (nor less) useful now than then.

 

[pemerton]

A few days ago, I wrote up a post that went into more detail about one of the features that I associated with a lot of contemporary games: i.e., Player Created Narrative Tags. I made sure to mention the Founders and Early Adapters (e.g., Over the Edge, Risus RPG, HeroQuest, etc.) as well as the Popularizers around 2010 who helped bring these more into the mainstream (Fate, Cortex Plus, 13th Age). I then listed more recent games that utilized these mechanics (e.g., Fabula Ultima, City of Mists, Daggerheart, etc.). After an error wiped out everything that I wrote, I decided to scrap that idea and instead approached my post by examining the question in terms Daggerheart, which led to this post.

I haven't read Daggerheart, but I am inferring that experiences in Daggerheart are similar to the backgrounds in 13th Age: free descriptors that play a similar role, in resolution, to skill bonuses in 3E and onwards D&D. Have I got that right?

 

[gban007]

Only if you assume all choices are binary, and intentionally pick silly things to be the opposites to the things you like. If you don't like spicy food, you must prefer bland food. If you don't like exceeding the speed limit while driving, you must prefer driving as slow as possible. If you don't like horror movies you must want movies where nothing scary ever happens.

If someone says, "Striving to reduce the mechanical workload on the GM isn't a particularly important goal for me," do you really believe it's a good faith response to say, "So you must prefer to increase the mechanical workload on the GM then?" Because to me, that reads as a completely disingenuous statement designed to score cheap points. We're excluding the possibility that reducing the workload is perfectly acceptable, just not at the expense of certain other things, or that the someone has already found the ideal workload balance and is happy to remain there.

I believe it's important that die rolls can sometimes have results that some people would consider inconsequential. To distil that down to saying, "Sablewyvern prefers inconsequential rolls" strips all context and is not an accurate restatement of my position. So on, and so forth, for each point.


From where I'm sitting, you were completely justified.

I can't see / recall Aldarcs original post before edit.
As it stands though, i said in my post that a possibility was that Micah was happy with current levels, and didnt want to push any further in one direction.
In Aldarcs current edit, he doesn't say that Micah must prefer this, that, the other, he asked if Micah preferred that or not, so didnt make any sort of disingenuous comment, he asked a question that Micah could have responded to saying no, I just like 3e or 5e or Level up levels of the various things.

 

[gban007]

If someone says, "Striving to reduce the mechanical workload on the GM isn't a particularly important goal for me,"

Just additional point, I think if Micah had said above a different response may have come, but Micah said reducing mechanical workload on DM is moving away from their preference, which seems clear that he doesn't want any further reduction (and may want increased workload), and that any risk of reducing the mechanical workload could be pretty important to them.
I think saying something like T20's less overs for cricket is moving away from my preference, strongly suggests that I dont want less overs, not that reducing overs isn't important to me, as suggests I could accept less overs if some other important goal was reached.

 

[SableWyvern]

I can't see / recall Aldarcs original post before edit.
As it stands though, i said in my post that a possibility was that Micah was happy with current levels, and didnt want to push any further in one direction.
In Aldarcs current edit, he doesn't say that Micah must prefer this, that, the other, he asked if Micah preferred that or not, so didnt make any sort of disingenuous comment, he asked a question that Micah could have responded to saying no, I just like 3e or 5e or Level up levels of the various things.

I don't know what was edited either. Maybe I'm also reading it too harshly, but it did initially come across to me as, "Oh, you don't generally like spicy food all that much? So does that mean you only like bland food?"

 

[gban007]

I don't know what was edited either. Maybe I'm also reading it too harshly, but it did initially come across to me as, "Oh, you don't generally like spicy food all that much? So does that mean you only like bland food?"

I can sort of see that, maybe I'm just more optimistic / generous in my reading of posts

 

[Gorgon Zee]

although I don't care for your implication that sim and fun are somehow mutually exclusive. I find sim rules extremely gratifying

Sorry, that wasn't intended. The contrast was meant between a rule that aims at simulation (which is fun) and a rule that is aimed purely as fun. As an example, I like hit locations and specific consequences for damaged body parts as rules -- the fun is found in the simulation. I also like having M&Ms represent hit points and consuming them when damaged. That is fun without the simulation.

 

[Aldarc]

I can't see / recall Aldarcs original post before edit.
As it stands though, i said in my post that a possibility was that Micah was happy with current levels, and didnt want to push any further in one direction.
In Aldarcs current edit, he doesn't say that Micah must prefer this, that, the other, he asked if Micah preferred that or not, so didnt make any sort of disingenuous comment, he asked a question that Micah could have responded to saying no, I just like 3e or 5e or Level up levels of the various things.

The only thing the edit did was further clarify the final line that his play preferences were valid no matter what they were.

Edit: to be clear: Pre-edit the final line was “Your play preferences are valid.” Post-edit, the final is as you see it. That is all the edit changed.