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

[Neonchameleon]

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

Indeed not every game tries to force players into a narrow theme - but literally every game there ever was or will be does have a set of themes it supports and it hinders many others outside that set.

And in my experience a good modern game like Apocalypse World or Daggerheart by the time it hits the table supports a significantly broader set of themes than a clunky old game like AD&D 2e by the time it hits the table (i e. when you've chosen which specific house rules you want).

 

[Neonchameleon]

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?

Not even close. What you've got is basically GURPS with all it's glorious crunchy excesses. I refer you to this answer for what I consider the hallmarks

 

[mamba]

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.

I guess I agree with this, in general playbooks and a rules restricted DM are part of modern rules

 

[mamba]

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.

the ‘it’ is not important, let me rephrase it to ‘your description sounds like you envision TTRPGs as giant state machines’

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.

you may be right, I used theme more as setting / topics of fiction. I agree that it covers a wide scope of those while creating similar experiences across them out of necessity, ie it is one generic ruleset, not 50 bespoke ones

That however allows it to cover a wide range reasonably well rather than a narrow range with more mechanical support. My sweet spot is somewhere in the middle, get too narrow and it becomes a straight jacket if you want to do things adjacent to but outside its intended scope

 

[Umbran]

So, upthread I mentioned that I don't think I think much about mechanics being modern or not, but that design might deserve that kind of consideration. I think that still holds, for me, but let me also write this, and see where it goes...

It can be said that design is where engineering meets needs and wants.

Individual mechanics are bits of engineering - they are how the game does things. When you find some need or want you want to fulfill, you look at the ways you have to accomplish those ends - and making the choices you make of what engineering bits to use to meet the needs is the process of design.

Thus, the real measure of a design is whether it does a good job meeting the chosen needs and wants that are the design goals.

Much of our discussion of whether we like a particular design, or mechanic, is actually, I think, a misplaced discussion about whether our personal needs and wants match those a particular design was trying to meet.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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

I’m not sure… I think we can find examples of players being able to influence the game beyond the actions of their characters, which seems to be what you’re getting at, pretty early in the hobby’s development.

Not a space I am that familiar with, but Outgunned Adventure seems to be pretty well regarded, so that would be the first one I would look at more closely.

As to why not a Lara Croft game, because I want to be able to do more than just Lara Croft stuff in the Lara Croft universe. The game should also be able to cover Indiana Jones and other things that fall into the same genre or branch out a bit towards James Bond for a few sessions or a bit of supernatural stuff. Basically I do not want to tell the same story over and over again, so if the game only allows me to tell one story, it is not as flexible as I would like it to be.

I suppose I’m not sure what you mean by “more than just Lara Croft stuff”.

The question wasn't directed at me, and I'm not all that well versed in Tomb Raider so I don't have a specific answer to this question ready. However, it is entirely possible that I might choose a game that wasn't designed specifically to offer a Tomb Raider experience, because there is no single "Tomb Raider Experience".

I mean… if you were to buy a Tomb Raider video game, you’d likely have a good idea at this point what to expect. I don’t see why that would be significantly different for an RPG.

A dedicated Tomb Raider game will be designed to offer the author's idea of the ideal Tomb Raider RPG experience. If that idea closely matches my own, then I'm likely to pick that game up if I want Tomb Raider. However, if that idea doesn't match my own, the dedicated game is offering me little of value, and is potentially working actively against me, especially if it's tightly designed and not easy to modify or has made fundamental assumptions at odds with what I want.

Sure, but couldn’t this also apply to a more generic game? I mean… I know GURPS covers tons of stuff across many books… but would you just keep buying new books and adding new rules systems?

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).

I suppose that’s possible. It’s an interesting idea, at least.

In what way do you think that the mechanics drive play? And would they be the only factor? What drives play in a more traditional system?

 

[Neonchameleon]

I guess I agree with this, in general playbooks and a rules restricted DM are part of modern rules

And playbooks are just the modern incarnation of classes.

 

[pemerton]

And playbooks are just the modern incarnation of classes.

Vincent Baker deliberately used some jargon to avoid carrying over too much baggage from other RPGs.

But the MC is a GM. "Playbooks" are classes/professions/occupations. Other RPGs have GM moves (not all of them, but some of them), they just don't call them that. Harm clocks are a type of hit points system. Etc.

 

[Aldarc]

I mean… if you were to buy a Tomb Raider video game, you’d likely have a good idea at this point what to expect. I don’t see why that would be significantly different for an RPG.

Possibly. If I buy a Star Wars game, I might not. The sorts of games to which IPs are attached can vary in style and content. That's why I think this discussion would profit from ditching discussion of Tomb Raider or Lara Croft.

I really don't get this Tomb Raider discussion. At all. And to be clear, I am addressing this to basically everyone involved.

It doesn't really feel like what people are actually talking about when discussing "themed games" vs. "generic games." The fact that it involves an IP does not clarify anything. It further muddies the water. For example, people talk about using 5e D&D for everything and treating it as if it was a generic system. Wasn't there a Stargate game that used the 5e system? Is that a themed game or just a themed supplement of a "generic" game? So all this Tomb Raider stuff is such a weird rabbit hole discussion. It's treating IP-based games as if they represented the lion's share of themed games.

If we were talking Monsterhearts vs. GURPS/SWADE for telling stories about sexy monsters, teenage angst, hormones, high school drama, and LBGTQ+ themes, then I would understand this discussion better. It would be a discussion about a specialized game vs. generic game (plus supplement and/or kitbashing).

If we are wanting to talk about themed games vs. generic games, then I think that it would be easier if we dump the IPs from discussion. IPs can be associated with "themed games" but also games that stylize themselves as more generic games. Old Gods of Appalachia and Magnus Archives are "themed," in terms of the aesthetics of their IP but they both build on the fairly generic Cypher System, and it's questionable the extent to which the system actually enhances the gameplay playing stories for these IPs. We talked earlier of games mismatched to systems - e.g., 5e D&D, PbtA, FitD, etc. - and the same holds true here.

IMHO, we all need to take a step back and ask ourselves: What is this conversation really about at this point? What are we actually discussing here? Have we lost the plot of the discussion? Are we better served by dropping this Tomb Raider talk in favor of finding the plot?

 

[aramis erak]

Hmmm. In what way do you consider Alternity and Rolemaster similar? Handling of the way abilities fit into classes?

All three are, of course level based skill driven...
but...
Dev points: In 3.x, it's class based. In RM, it's based upon current attributes. In Alternity, it's based upon level (4+New Level).
Dev point spends: In RM and Alt., different skills have different costs, and those costs vary a point by class. In 3.x, the costs are always 1, 2, or forbidden.
Advancement: 3.x is +(new level)×1000; RM is 10,000 per level through 5th; 20k per level through 10th, 30k per level through 15th, and so on; Alternity is 4+(new level) to obtain the new level (same as the skill points given. Both RM and Alternity are slower increase in required experience.

Alternity and RM use skills for attacks; 3.x does not, instead using a class & level lookup for BAB.

Alternity and RM do not automatically improve combat capabilities; 3.x does. (Ok, if using one of the options, RM gives a very slow automatic advancemeng to weapon skills for certain classes, which stacks with dev-point purchased ranks)

Now, Alternity Perks are fairly comparable to Feats, and have no basis in the editions of RM I'm familiar with (1e/2e, and SM 1e/2e).

I do see the influence, but I'll note that Monte Cook is a common thread in all 3.