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

[soviet]

And as with Soviet above, I'm suspecting that's because you care about some distinctions that for many people are just not that relevant. And that's very much about having the right tools for the job.

People who don't think that system matters, don't think that system matters, I agree. Their games are worse for it.

 

[SableWyvern]

Which from my point of view I tried to do and you seem to dislike it. There's only so much effort I'm willing to put in here.

Throughout this conversation, I've been saying that it sounds like you think intent only counts as intent if it's narrowly focused on a single thing.

Your responses have felt, to me, as if you were saying that you are simply using intent in it's normal, common form. You even went so far as to suggest that I should start using the word "purpose", because I was the one using "intent" unclearly.

It is only very recently that you have said something to the effect of, "Well, actually, I probably am using a special and very limited definition of the word intent, just like you've been saying I am."

I still think your definition is a poor one that is arbitrarily narrow, but if you'd confirmed from the start that this was your definition, I would not have bothered arguing the point. As I've already mentioned, I agree that Intent* is a key part of modern design philosophy.

*as defined by @Thomas Shey

 

[Campbell]

The following games are not narrowly focused on a single thing:

• Draw Steel
• Warhammer - The Old World
• Fabula Ultima
• Lancer
• Vampire - The Masquerade, 5th Edition
• Legend of the Five Rings Fifth Edition
• Tales of Xadia
• Dune 2d20

These are games intended for long term campaign play that are no less general use than their contempories that have a clear purpose, mechanics that back it up and most importantly do not have non-contributing mechanics that seldom come up. These are the games I think of when I think of modern traditional design.

Yes. When it comes to a clear focus I look at mechanics and how play is organized. How a game actively supports its premise.

 

[pemerton]

The following games are not narrowly focused on a single thing:

A few more RPGs that are not narrowly focused on a single thing:

*Burning Wheel

*Torchbearer 2e

*Cortex+​

Maybe also 4e D&D.

But I would think of the above being "modern" in a way that (say) GURPS, or 3E D&D, are not.

 

[Campbell]

I should add that I do think simulation of setting is worthy goal of intentional design, which is why I praised Traveller. I would add Worlds Without Number and pretty much everything Kevin Crawford makes as a hallmark of intentional design and that it actually shows you how to organize play and deliver that sandbox experience.

 

[pemerton]

All I'm saying is that games are more than the fictional situation we are playing out.

Yes, this. I've tried to convey a similar idea upthread.

If I'm using Champions for a Hellboy-esque Campaign I'm not actually getting anywhere close to the experience of playing Apocalypse Keys. The play loops are different, the way we interface with the characters is different, the reward structure is different. Champions might have a looser premise, but that does not mean it's in any way going to replicate the experience of another game.

That's not a knock by the way. It's not failing us. It's just a different game.

We're not talking about tools. Apocalypse Keys is not a tool for exploring a premise - it's a game in which we do that has unique gameplay features that other games do not offer. The actual game matters and not just for how much fidelity it has to the premise.

I don't know Apocalypse Keys other than your posts about it. But drawing on RPGs that I do know, I can say that Prince Valiant, Burning Wheel and Torchbearer 2e are not just tools for exploring a particular genre or fictional situation. I couldn't just convert the stats of PCs and NPCs/creatures to (say) AD&D or 3E D&D and have the game go on the same but using slightly different dice rolls!

An especially striking example to illustrate the point (I think it illustrates it as strongly as Dogs in the Vineyard, maybe Apocalypse Keys) is Agon 2e. Here's the starting situation for an island that I wrote up:

Kassos
A steep-sloped island of handicrafters and traders

Signs of the Gods
Demeter (Goddess of Law): Her sign is the seal - promises made and obligations kept.

Hephaistos (God of Crafting): His sign is a star-shaped brooch wrought out of tin, the imposition of form onto the chaos of the natural world.

Zeus (Lord of the Sky): A storm rages and torrential rain is falling as your sailors dock your vessel.

Arrival
Water flows through the streets of the town, sweeping away the market stalls and hand carts.

A crowd gathers at the edge of a cliff that overlooks the port - led by Dares, the priest of Zeus, they are going to throw a young man, Pythios, over the edge as a sacrifice.

A middle-aged woman, bedraggled in the downpour, recognises you as heroes and looks at you imploringly. She is Chryse, mother of Pythios.

You must choose swiftly: will you listen to Chryse (Arts & Oration to stop the crowd performing the sacrifice), or comfort her (Resolve & Spirit: if she wins, she hurls herself into the sea after her son), or join the crowd on the cliff (Resolve & Spirit: if the heroes win, the Strife Level is lowered by one)?

I've played Rolemaster with a classical Greek flavour. It can't replicate this. There's no mechanic for reducing strife by honouring a god by way of sacrifice; nor even for rousing a mother out of her despair.

 

[soviet]

I've played Rolemaster with a classical Greek flavour. It can't replicate this. There's no mechanic for reducing strife by honouring a god by way of sacrifice; nor even for rousing a mother out of her despair.

? These can all just be handled as Persuasion checks in 5e, with no special thematical postmodern game design required. Assuming that the player thinks of them and that the GM agrees. This way you have more room in the book for hundreds of exception based combat abilities, like all RPGs need.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That some people may not want those experiences or value them does not mean they are getting them.

I'm thinking perhaps you left a word out of this, since as written it doesn't make much sense.

 

[Thomas Shey]

People who don't think that system matters, don't think that system matters, I agree. Their games are worse for it.

Not at all what I said, but if you care to read it that way don't let me stop you.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Throughout this conversation, I've been saying that it sounds like you think intent only counts as intent if it's narrowly focused on a single thing.

And I tried to make a distinction between two versions of that, and apparently that's not working. So, I again repeat I'm uninterested in continuing to chase that.