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

[RenleyRenfield]

Though I think you can't write-off generic systems as a group as "not modern" when things like Cortex exist. But that also may not have been your intent.

Indeed. I have only given contrasting examples to highlight where older design concepts (such as pass /fail or Gm fiat) are being replaced by a modern concept of (fail forward and GM limiting rules).

Cortex is a great example of building on the idea of "narrative vague" instead of "strict annotation". This is a great mechanic!

And how it is wielded in a "generic" way, using the same design principles that Modiphius does with their 2d20 system = is that is actually not really generic, not the way GURPS is. GURPS has no functional rules differences in any of its settings or books. It uses the rules in the same exact way. Cortex and 2d20 do not! Each Cortex book alters the way the core rules work, which parts are allowed and what are not, and in all cases - a full alteration of the mechanics in various areas. That is to say Xadia is in no way compatible with Marvel heroic, despite both being Cortex. That is absolutely not true for GURPS. there is no GURPS book that is not compatible with any other GURPS book.

So then maybe Cortex isn't a generic system, not like GURPS, but instead a toolkit for some, but not all, modern design principles of "narrative vague" instead of "strict annotation" - and how you implement that can differ.

 

[Aldarc]

Though I think you can't write-off generic systems as a group as "not modern" when things like Cortex exist. But that also may not have been your intent.

I hate to say it, but I think that it's pretty safe to write off Cortex. That game has been so poorly mismanaged and passed from various owners. It's pretty dead in all but name. You can buy Cortex Prime, but it's mostly written for people who have prior experience with Cortex. You can't buy any prior Cortex games on places like DriveThruRPG. It only got Dragon Prince out. I have not heard a peep about Cortex from its current owners Dire Wolf Digital recently. I believe that in 2024, Cam Banks declared that parts of the 2017/2018 would simply be left unfulfilled! I would love to be wrong, but I don't think that Cortex has much of a future.

 

[Agamon]

Sure, but IMO it should be claimed subjectively, preferably explicitly so.

It should go without saying that something being better or worse is subjective, but I guess that's something about the internet that doesn't change lol

 

[mamba]

I don't follow your point, mamba. You seem to be conflating a "themed game" with an "IP-based game."

no, I was using the latter as hopefully sufficiently universally known examples for strongly themed games vs less strongly themed (the ‘generic’ action adventure).

Action Adventure is still a theme, but it is a wider scope than Lara Croft. The narrower your scope, the more the mechanics can hone in on that theme, the more generic, the less they can.

So saying that ‘intent’ only means covering a narrow scope in the mechanics, but supporting that scope well to me is wrong. I can very well intend to cover a wider scope and the resulting design still is intentional

 

[mamba]

The purpose of this thread is not what you would rather play.

sure

The purpose is to discuss the possible criteria that describe what appears to be a concept of "modern mechanics".

and my reply was meant to say that claiming that intent is something only games with a very narrow focus can have is patently false.

Maybe there was a bit of me disagreeing with the ‘modern is always better’ discussion that is going on in parallel too, but that does not really belong in that specific reply

 

[Micah Sweet]

It should go without saying that something being better or worse is subjective, but I guess that's something about the internet that doesn't change lol

It should I agree, but saying so explicitly is IMO less likely to engender conflict and anger.

 

[Aldarc]

no, I was using the latter as hopefully sufficiently universally known examples for strongly themed games vs less strongly themed (the ‘generic’ action adventure).

Action Adventure is still a theme, but it is a wider scope than Lara Croft. The narrower your scope, the more the mechanics can hone in on that theme, the more generic, the less they can.

So saying that ‘intent’ only means covering a narrow scope in the mechanics, but supporting that scope well to me is wrong. I can very well intend to cover a wider scope and the resulting design still is intentional

Maybe it's your phrasing. Maybe it's me after a long day. But I am having difficulty parsing what you are actually trying to argue. I'm perfectly fine letting it drop because I feel no closer to clarity than before, and it may be easier for us to move on.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Indeed. I have only given contrasting examples to highlight where older design concepts (such as pass /fail or Gm fiat) are being replaced by a modern concept of (fail forward and GM limiting rules).

Cortex is a great example of building on the idea of "narrative vague" instead of "strict annotation". This is a great mechanic!

And how it is wielded in a "generic" way, using the same design principles that Modiphius does with their 2d20 system = is that is actually not really generic, not the way GURPS is. GURPS has no functional rules differences in any of its settings or books. It uses the rules in the same exact way. Cortex and 2d20 do not! Each Cortex book alters the way the core rules work, which parts are allowed and what are not, and in all cases - a full alteration of the mechanics in various areas. That is to say Xadia is in no way compatible with Marvel heroic, despite both being Cortex. That is absolutely not true for GURPS. there is no GURPS book that is not compatible with any other GURPS book.

I'd have to suggest you're not sufficiently familiar with GURPS if you think there are not different rules in some of its books. They, in fact, actively change rules and how they're applied for certain genres and subgenres.

So then maybe Cortex isn't a generic system, not like GURPS, but instead a toolkit for some, but not all, modern design principles of "narrative vague" instead of "strict annotation" - and how you implement that can differ.

Again, I'd have to suggest here you are not showing sufficient familiarity with older generic systems.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I hate to say it, but I think that it's pretty safe to write off Cortex. That game has been so poorly mismanaged and passed from various owners. It's pretty dead in all but name.

Its still well enough known that whether its particularly active now, its design--which is the point of this thread--is relevant.

 

[pemerton]

I loved AW, but have reached the point where I consider 'PbtA' branding to be a warning flag on a new game. It's a bit melancholy really. I also consider 'OSR' a warning despite being nostalgic for old D&D, avoid 'NSR' games despite liking the Black Hack, and expect nothing but disappointment from Cepheus games despite loving Traveller; so I think it's a more general problem, really.

I don't want to put words into your mouth, but the general problem sounds like a perennial one: a lot of stuff is not well-designed.