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

[RenleyRenfield]

My point was simply that the mechanics referenced seem seem to owe the Forge a great deal for their development. If we're defining a design style, then how that style emerged certainly seems relevant to me.

I entirely agree, how we got from there to here is very much relevant.

In fact, I think your point is salient to the emergence of a concept that was not a concept before the forge. In gaming discussion, there was no such conversation of old and new school manners of playing. Mechanics were somewhat nuanced, but by and large up until 2005, they resulted in a very similar mechanical result set, and it was the context of the metaplots (which were huge then) and settings which drove diverse play (i.e. Vampire the Masquerade vs GURPS).

Now we have something that I feel is "modern mechanic" which is that we have now refined, and in a few cases invented, new ways of having rules change the table, change the discussion manners, and even change the role of the GM in entirely new ways.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I entirely agree, how we got from there to here is very much relevant.

In fact, I think your point is salient to the emergence of a concept that was not a concept before the forge. In gaming discussion, there was no such conversation of old and new school manners of playing. Mechanics were somewhat nuanced, but by and large up until 2005, they resulted in a very similar mechanical result set, and it was the context of the metaplots (which were huge then) and settings which drove diverse play (i.e. Vampire the Masquerade vs GURPS).

Now we have something that I feel is "modern mechanic" which is that we have now refined, and in a few cases invented, new ways of having rules change the table, change the discussion manners, and even change the role of the GM in entirely new ways.

I think you're overstating things. White Wolf didn't refer to the GM as "the storyteller" for no reason and there is a significant difference between a Trad GM and a referee running a West Marches game. Yes it opened further but there was never one way.

 

[SableWyvern]

I think you're overstating things. White Wolf didn't refer to the GM as "the storyteller" for no reason and there is a significant difference between a Trad GM and a referee running a West Marches game. Yes it opened further but there was never one way.

I think I agree with this.

It's not so much that the Forge was dealing with new concepts or revealing a previously hidden truth that different styles of play are possible, but more that it was openly saying, "It is necessary for us to directly discuss and address ways in which we should deal with these concepts and what effect the way we deal with them has on our games." Sometimes it openly discussed and addressed these things in abrasive and arrogant ways, and I think many of their conclusions were wrong or begging the question but, looking back now, I think it's impossible to deny the important legacy created by promoting that discussion (even for someone like me, who still isn't especially interested in including Forge and post-Forge concepts in their games).

I certainly agree that if we're using "modern" to describe a school of thought and design, then Post-Forge is probably a more accurately descriptive term. Not using modern would also remove the tendency for some people to think "modern" in this context actually means, "more advanced and obviously better". However, I think pushing for Post-Forge is tilting at windmills. Modern is the term we've got, and people aren't likely to give it up.

 

[Autumnal]

Hmm. Separate thoughts, first on designers I’d expect any reasonably fair observer to acknowledge as important trailblazers whether or not the observer happens to personally like the results. At the top of the list, Greg Stafford, whose name here should be set in large type, blood, italic, and blink. After him, people like Jonathan Tweet and Robin Laws, and colleagues like Rob Heinsoo, Chris Pramas & Nicole Lindroos, and the aspirational Erick Wujick and Jenna Moran.

These last two inspire a lot of folks to go fight on whatever direction one may be going, without many efforts to go in directions they seem to have been to been going themselves. As George R.R. Martin said of Howard Walrop, not so much “damn, I wish I’d that idea” as “what the hell was that?”

Sub-thought: anyone who’s been a senior designer on an edition of D&D is a significant influence on the field, whatever else they do or don’t do.

I tend to think of “modern” rpg design as a funnel with its mouth in the ‘70s, widening some in the ‘80s, a lot more on the ‘90s, and encompassing much of the field after that. Yes, this explicitly puts the general milieu of modernity before the Forge. I always saw Thor best things as pulling existing elements together in new blends and then interacting on the results.

Like others, if I had to pick one diagnostic feature, it’d be intentionality. Specific, not just knowing what they intend to happen during play and a result of it, but TELLING PLAYERS ABOUT IT. The second part is where earlier games tending toward modernity are most likely to fall down. After that, I’d put traits thought through for their purpose in this particular game, and player-customizable as much as is suitable (within specific limits like cultural keywords in HeroQuest/QuestWorlds, templates in Star Wars et seq, et very cetera).

 

[Autumnal]

Hmm. Separate thoughts, first on designers I’d expect any reasonably fair observer to acknowledge as important trailblazers whether or not the observer happens to personally like the results. At the top of the list, Greg Stafford, whose name here should be set in large type, blood, italic, and blink. After him, people like Jonathan Tweet and Robin Laws, and colleagues like Rob Heinsoo, Chris Pramas & Nicole Lindroos, and the aspirational Erick Wujick and Jenna Moran.

These last two inspire a lot of folks to go fight on whatever direction one may be going, without many efforts to go in directions they seem to have been to been going themselves. As George R.R. Martin said of Howard Walrop, not so much “damn, I wish I’d that idea” as “what the hell was that?”

Sub-thought: anyone who’s been a senior designer on an edition of D&D is a significant influence on the field, whatever else they do or don’t do.

I tend to think of “modern” rpg design as a funnel with its mouth in the ‘70s, widening some in the ‘80s, a lot more on the ‘90s, and encompassing much of the field after that. Yes, this explicitly puts the general milieu of modernity before the Forge. I always saw Thor best things as pulling existing elements together in new blends and then interacting on the results.

Like others, if I had to pick one diagnostic feature, it’d be intentionality. Specific, not just knowing what they intend to happen during play and a result of it, but TELLING PLAYERS ABOUT IT. The second part is where earlier games tending toward modernity are most likely to fall down. After that, I’d put traits thought through for their purpose in this particular game, and player-customizable as much as is suitable (within specific limits like cultural keywords in HeroQuest/QuestWorlds, templates in Star Wars et seq, et very cetera).

There’s kinds room within this framework for OSR games and the like, which have a degree of deliberateness and overtness progenitors lacked. I could make an argument for them as postmodern, but I’d have to quote Umberto Eco’s “Postscript to the Name of a Rose” and then exposit from there, and it would anyway get Argus with over whether OSR revisiting is ironic. So nah.

 

[loverdrive]

I think a good example of stinky ancient mechanic vs shiny modern mechanic is Divine Smite in 5e vs Divine Smite in 5.5e

The former is a bespoke mechanic that is working similarly, but differently from all others -- it works mostly like a spell, but not quite. The latter is just a spell, fully integrated into the larger system. The mechanical difference between the two is negligible, it's mostly a question of presentation.

Level 2: Divine Smite
Starting at 2nd level, when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target, in addition to the weapon's damage. The extra damage is 2d8 for a 1st-level spell slot, plus 1d8 for each spell level higher than 1st, to a maximum of 5d8. The damage increases by 1d8 if the target is an undead or a fiend, to a maximum of 6d8.

Divine Smite
Level 1 Evocation
Casting Time: Bonus action, which you take immediately after hitting a target with a Melee weapon or an Unarmed Strike
Range: Self
Components: V
Duration: Instantaneous

The target takes an extra 2d8 Radiant damage from the attack. The damage increases by 1d8 if the target is a Fiend or an Undead.
Using a Higher-Level Spell Slot. The damage increases by 1d8 for each spell slot level above 1.

Classes: Paladin
Source: PHB'24, page 265. Available in the SRD 5.2.1 and the Basic Rules (2024).

 

[Old Fezziwig]

Like others, if I had to pick one diagnostic feature, it’d be intentionality. Specific, not just knowing what they intend to happen during play and a result of it, but TELLING PLAYERS ABOUT IT. The second part is where earlier games tending toward modernity are most likely to fall down.

A bit of a tangent, but this is the second time that "intentionality" has come up in conversations about game design that I've been reading or listening to. Mike Holmes was interviewed on the Ludological Alchemy podcast, and he was talking about the creative act and the importance of designing towards goals consciously rather than creating aimlessly.

 

[billd91]

A bit of a tangent, but this is the second time that "intentionality" has come up in conversations about game design that I've been reading or listening to. Mike Holmes was interviewed on the Ludological Alchemy podcast, and he was talking about the creative act and the importance of designing towards goals consciously rather than creating aimlessly.

Did he have examples of games "created aimlessly"? Because I have a hard time imagining a game created aimlessly - even original D&D, adapted and cobbled together from about a zillion influences, wasn't exactly "created aimlessly". The aim was creating a reasonably fun game that used mechanics that seemed to work.

 

[loverdrive]

Did he have examples of games "created aimlessly"? Because I have a hard time imagining a game created aimlessly - even original D&D, adapted and cobbled together from about a zillion influences, wasn't exactly "created aimlessly". The aim was creating a reasonably fun game that used mechanics that seemed to work.

"Creating a fun game" is creating aimlessly, I think. That's not a meaningful goal.

And there are a lot of examples of individual mechanics that just... are there for some reason, and don't seem to serve any design purpose. Yes, this is obviously a speculation: maybe there was a specific problem they were trying to solve, but it's surely not visible from the output.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Did he have examples of games "created aimlessly"? Because I have a hard time imagining a game created aimlessly - even original D&D, adapted and cobbled together from about a zillion influences, wasn't exactly "created aimlessly". The aim was creating a reasonably fun game that used mechanics that seemed to work.

But that's not a specific intention. That describes every halfway complete game ever. The question is what kind of experience it was supposed to produce, and it didn't have much focus there.