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

[pemerton]

I guess my problem with this is that it assumes that the only possible intent can be to want to create a particular, narrow experience. I do not think that is a valid assumption at all…

Given that a particular set of RPG mechanics, in conjunction with a particular set of processes of play, really can only provide a relatively distinct experience, intending anything else seems like it is aiming at the impossible.

 

[pemerton]

This (more narrative games, players having more control over the fiction) falls under modern mechanics, doesn't it?

What do you mean by "players having control over the fiction". Players in OD&D and AD&D, who play in the manner set out by Gygax in his rulebooks, exercise a lot of control over the fiction. But those are not modern games, I think basically by definition!

 

[pemerton]

This is what I see as a huge difference between the Forge games of the 2000s and the post-Forge games of the 2010s (I count both Fate and Burning Wheel as Forge-adjacent; they used the Forge as an indy RPG incubator and publisher as it was intended but as games were doing their own things and weren't there so much for the theory).

The bibliography for BW Revised includes Dogs in the Vineyard, Fulminata, Inspectres, My Life With Master, The Riddle of Steel and Sorcerer. The introduction to the game (Revised, p 12) refers to characters as being "represented by a series of numbers, designating their abilities, and a list of player-determined priorities." It goes on to say that "Manipulating these numbers and priorities within situations presented by the game master (GM) is what the game is all about." Sounds pretty Forge-y to me!

 

[SableWyvern]

then what is a modern game?

I've already formed and given my answer: It's a game that wants the mechanics to actively drive play.

If you've introduced (and rely on) mechanics that do that, then I'd say you've turned GURPS into a modern game. If you didn't do that, then you haven't.

 

[pemerton]

Speaking generally, the longer this thread goes on, the more I feel that the most distinctive defining feature of modern RPG design philosophy is the idea that the mechanics should drive play (as opposed to supporting or enabling play, such as through simulating a world).

Well, as I posted upthread,

The most tell-tale sign, for me, of this sort of "aimlessness" is that the game doesn't talk about how situations are framed or how stakes are established or how outcomes from one moment of resolution feed into or inform subsequent moments of resolution. The game presents itself as an imagined-state-of-affairs-simulator, but doesn't say anything about how a group of people actually go about establishing what to imagine, or how to make it unfold based on the inputs of the various group members. This is all just assumed as "prior knowledge" that the game participants bring with them (probably from their play of mid-80s style D&D).

what will make a game seem non-modern to me is if, as its method of establishing what scenes and stakes the GM presents to the players, it relies either on map-and-key, or the sort of GM-control-over-story that the DL modules exemplify (but that seems to have become almost a norm since).

Map-and-key is a way of having mechanics - in particular, the mechanics for determining where the PCs go on the map - drive play, but its role in classic D&D means that I don't see it as modern. And the idea that mechanics simply represent stuff to be imagined - with the actual play of the game relying on other (unstated) techniques - is also, for me, a sign that the game is not modern.

Here's an open question to anyone.

Say I get sick of Apocalypse World's nonsense. I decide that the failure mechanics don't allow me to disclaim decision making enough. You know what does though? GURPS.


So I decide to run an Apocalypse World game in GURPS. I create templates for the various classes and port over what I consider the essential GM tech (page 86 in 2e for anyone interested). Stakes, NPC decisions, fronts.

GURPS 4E is a ruleset that doesn't want you to use it. Really it's the GM section that's holding it back though. If I decide not to fudge the dice or use fiat to save the PC's...

Have I now made GURPS into a modern game?

It seems a bit silly to say yes but if I say no, then what is a modern game?

I think the answer is somewhere between "maybe" and "yes". It depends a bit on how well the mechanics permit you to adhere to the key ideas of AW play. I've used AW's ideas to help me GM Classic Traveller, and I think it worked well. My experience is that it's harder to use (say) classic D&D for this purpose - it's rules don't leave the right sort of room to bring the stakes, etc into play as they should.

 

[mamba]

I haven't played the modern Tomb Raider games so I'm going to switch to James Bond as I know that subject better. And if a James Bond game can only do James Bond things then so what? James Bond things include everything from stealth to seduction to sledding down a mountain on a cello case while being shot at.

if it covers a wide enough scope, sure. If it only covers things that occur in Goldfinger, then that might not be enough.

At no point did I say it need to be universal rules, I was just concerned about a truly narrow scope. Bond to me definitely is a wider scope than Tomb Raider

 

[mamba]

Given that a particular set of RPG mechanics, in conjunction with a particular set of processes of play, really can only provide a relatively distinct experience, intending anything else seems like it is aiming at the impossible.

I think it is simply aiming at providing something else that is not as tightly controlled. Not every game tries to force players into a narrow theme, and not all that do not try that are ‘old’ to me

Your description makes it sound like you envision TTRPGs as giant state machines, I do not

 

[mamba]

What do you mean by "players having control over the fiction". Players in OD&D and AD&D, who play in the manner set out by Gygax in his rulebooks, exercise a lot of control over the fiction. But those are not modern games, I think basically by definition!

they have control over their character’s actions, they have no control over worldbuilding, and I agree that AD&D / OD&D are not modern games

 

[pemerton]

they have control over their character’s actions, they have no control over worldbuilding, and I agree that AD&D / OD&D are not modern games

I replied to a post about "control over the fiction". I didn't know you meant worldbuilding.

Players in classic D&D, if played in the manner described by Gygax in the conclusion to his PHB, exercise a lot of control over what scenes/situations are presented. Exercising this sort of control is a key element of "skilled play".

EDIT: Players in Apocalypse World have control over the PC's actions, thoughts and memories. The rulebook is clear on this. You can't work out if a game is "modern" or not, nor whether it is the GM or the players who drive play, just by looking at these issues of authority over particular bits of the fiction. You need to look at the actual process of play, particularly on the GM side.

 

[pemerton]

I think it is simply aiming at providing something else that is not as tightly controlled. Not every game tries to force players into a narrow theme, and not all that do not try that are ‘old’ to me

Your description makes it sound like you envision TTRPGs as giant state machines, I do not

I don't really know what you mean by this. Eg I'm not sure what your "it" is, that you say is aiming at providing something else that is not as tightly controlled.

GURPS (to pick up on an example that's been discussed) is very broad in the topics of fiction that it aims to be able to represent. But it represents those varied topics in more-or-less the same way. And it's assumed/default process of play will produce a particular sort of experience. I don't think it is thematically very broad at all.