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

[Micah Sweet]

By this logic, you can intermingle chess, Monopoly, and Settlers of Catan and say, "just use the rules for the game you want," and have the result be coherent.

Technically, we should be able to put all the rules for every RPG ever written together in a big blender, and have what comes out be useable.

Games don't work like that, though. Games have core mechanical engines, and they don't all work for all genres.

You are IMO overstating your case. A single game can and often does have mechanics for a wide variety of things that nonetheless are compatible mechanically (if not necessarily thematically) with each other. No one said anything about combining mechanics from different incompatible games, and somehow assuming that's what I meant (perhaps so you could manufacture a straw man, I don't know) makes no sense to me.

 

[Bagpuss]

To me modern games give players some sort of control over the setting/story beyond just their own character.

Be it through some sort of metacurrency or mechanic like Momentum in 2d20 games that allow them to do stuff narratively beyond the influence of their own character, or through working together to create the world at the start, they may then even hand over most of the plot/story elements to the GM and have little narrative input later.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think if you don't consume modern fantasy media--as in from the early 10s to now--it's easy to believe that D&D is in it's own bubble, but if you do stuff like watch newer anime, play video games, or do some LitRPG reading then one wouldn't realize how much of D&D is out there into the world and now being reflected back into it.

Yeah. When talking about D&D's magic poorly representing fantasy, I very carefully use older fantasy for a reason; enough modern fantasy has been influenced either directly or indirectly by D&D that there's a certain tautological quality to counterarguments. Heck, I can even say the first time I knew that was happening (the Merlin cycle of Amber books when the "hanging spells" part of sorcery was described by Zelazny).

 

[Tigris]

I'm going to post a hot take. There's no such thing as modern RPG mechanics.

Here I agree somewhat. There are some modern mechanics but overall rpgs did almost not evolve because of different reasons.

I would still say thst there are some rpgs which use partially modern gamedesign. Because in the end RPG is also a game and rpg mechanics are modern if they use modern gamedesign.

With RPGs we still see rules and mechanics similar to those we used 20, 30 and 40 years ago coming out in new RPGs. Yes, there are new ways RPGs do things, like having a narrative focus, player facing mechanics, etc., but that doesn't suddenly antiquate the other mechanics that are still in regular use. It just means that there is a greater variety of modern ways to create RPGs.

Its a sad thing that we still wee the same old mechanics and it has to do with the fact that in rpg design there is just not that much money to get and that RPG players have lot of nostalgia and dont like change. and also thst there is 1 game which has such a huuge market dominance that soo many people just copy it.

Whether it's intended or not, and I think it's mostly unintended, calling the newer methods modern is very subtle One True Wayism. Modern is the good way and should be embraced, and the other mechanics are for the ancient grognards that shouldn't have games designed for them anymore. Never mind that new games with older mechanics get new players.

Well gamedesign overall evolved a lot the last 40 years. Yes some people still play monopol (often people who dont know many boardgames), but pretty mveryone who has played 50 or more modern games agrees that monopoly is just a bad outdated game with outdated mechanics.


Also often old things, even if they qre outdated, get new fans because they are still popular (at least in parts of society). People watch popular things and play popular things because others do it. Even chess, which is okish, would if released today be played by no one, because modern game design evolved so much. (Chess only works at all because it has 100 000s of players. Because it only is fun/makes sense to play in such a narrow skill gap that its hard to find similar level players. And the lack of variety even brought discussions into high level chess to change start setup)


I am really glad that in boardgaming the players were not so averse to changey and allowed to have today 188× different boardgame mechanics, and we are not left with roll to move.


If players want old mechanic, why do they then need new games? They can just play the already existing old games with old mechanics.



There were always games whigh looked into modern gamedesign and took some inspiration from there. Of course the big one was Dungeons and Drsgons 4th edition, which tried to apply precise gsme design to all aspect of it.

Using clear modern game design language for abilities, as is the game industry standard (MtG like wording which most modern boardgames and computer games use). Which includes use of keywords and tags.

Codyfing things, to make it clear design goals not just accidents like the roles.

Cresting a setting gameplay first. If its not needed or msde for gaming its left away.


Streamlining mechanics (like boardgames, modern eargames etc. Do). Like Having uniform representstion since that makes it easier to learn new classes. (Which is ehy this is used in all modern class based gsmesy shooters mobss etc). Reduving mumber of skills, making skills more defined to use (similar to hoe PbtA plsyer "moved" look).

Thinking about how to use mechanics to make it easier in play. (Cards for tracking "vancian spells" (and conditions eith the card), non eucledian movement, having squares directly not "feet").


The bad reception of its modern gamedesign in 4e (often by people who were not familiar with modern games) Unfortunately threw RPG design back by 10 years, glad 5.24 at lesst used again a bit more 4e influence


Still we fortunately do get nowadays some games with some modern gamedesign. Sure still most use dice resolution ss its main mechanic, but we see othet thigns at lesst

- Legacy mechanics in Yazeebas Breakfast

- mission based combat design with alternative goals like in Beacon (or Lancer and Draw Steel)

- illusion of choice design from Pathfinder 2 and Dragonbane. (Making one feel thst one has a choice is for many people more important than having one.)

- deckbuilding to customize your dive by gloomhaven RPG (which can now be read)

- codyfing and separating combat roles by Strike and Wyrdwood wand.

- Solving specific problems like alphastrike problem with escalation dice in 13th age, or the "always repeating the same when using ressource based approsch" in trespasser.

- allowing to get rid of the GM in more narrative based games like Alice is Missing or Ironsworn as well as in tactical games like Emberwind.

- even just actually using specific physical components to improve gameplay (coming away from the idea that the only components should be paper a pen and dices) like cards getting more common is great to see.


Of course the process would be A LOT faster, if D&D the huge marker leader would again be more daring, but unfortunstely this wont be the case.

 

[Fenris-77]

IDK, I've always thought that 'class' came back pretty directly to things like Bilbo being a burglar, Aragorn being a ranger, or Conan being a barbarian. The characters in a lot of fantasy fiction fill siloed roles that are in many cases pretty easy to equate to classes. I certainly don't think that's the only reason that D&D used the class mechanic, but I think it's a pretty easily defended part of the picture.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Clearly not when he uses the phrase D&D-inspired heroic fantasy, which is an entirely different beast than the heroic fantasy that inspired D&D.

Well, one has to note the heroic fantasy that inspired D&D varied rather more significantly, and in many cases a serious attempt to represent it would require different mechanics. D&D fantasy, on the other hand, performed a certain--consolidation.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I agree with your overall message here.

But, at the same time, I also think "modern" can, sometimes, mean better*. And there should be nothing wrong in admitting that. And I see a resistence in fans of old styles in acknowledging that too. So the argument cuts both ways.

*One example is when I see two games that aim at the same goals, and one is simpler, faster, more intuitive, etc. while retaining similar flavor. But fans of old games will discard it out of "it's all subjective" argument. Eg: I find The Black Hack a better implementation of old-school sensibilities than OG d&d because it has the qualities I point to above. But I keep seeing fans of OG d&d dying on the hill of "descending armor class is great!" or "a dozen different type resolutions and dice types for different systems is great!" or yet "nothing wrong with having to consult chainmail rules for combat situations!". Which I find the same case of people speaking out of personal preferences (instead of rationality), as the people who finds modern is always better that you point to above.

Your example already makes the assumption that "simpler" and "faster" are objectively better, so I can't see your claim here as without bias, despite your suggestion otherwise.

 

[Bagpuss]

We can approach this with a more extreme example:

Would you use the same mechanics to run a game that's supposed to make players feel like their characters are in a Robert E. Howard/Conan novel as in a Jane Austen/Pride & Prejudice type novel?

Given that Mr. Darcy never swings a sword, probably not.

Oh you could easily reskin mechanics for sword thrust to instead be witty insults, and swap hit points for reputation, and have practically the same mechanics running underneath.

So, rules matter - the rules you use ought to support the genre you're trying to play.

I agree but I don't think your example is a particularly strong one.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So this isn't me disagreeing with you, just adding a different perspective.

Some games, and some groups of players, approach RPGs with the intention that the main goal of play to be the characters interacting with the setting, full stop. This is most usually seen in a subset of OSR play sometimes called world-in-motion and usually associated with a richly keyed hex map. So there's no GM intent involved, no 'kind' of story assumed, just a richly detailed setting and players set loose to trash that setting in whatever way seems like fun at the time. They might trade, they might explore, they might dungeon crawl, they might get involved in politics, they might do whatever. The 'point' of the game is for the players to play a character in the setting, again, full stop.

This isn't my personal preferred mode of play but I know a bunch of folks for whom it is. I bring it up because this playstyle is one that will often see reward in multiple systems for all kinds of possible activities.

Thank you! The above is definitely my preferred method of play.

 

[VLessa]

Your example already makes the assumption that "simpler" and "faster" are objectively better, so I can't see your claim here as without bias, despite your suggestion otherwise.

Isn't it though?

If I want to get to the same result, theme and intentionality-wise, making a simpler, faster and intuitive calculation is better than a complex, arcane and time-consuming one, no?

Advocating for the later here sounds to me like personal bias, not rational analysis.