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

[Aldarc]

The way all those are expressed by modern games does not work for me. Fiction first as expressed by narrative games is very troublesome to me for example. Nice "gotcha" though.

I'm not speaking solely about narrative games. I mentioned 5e D&D and OSR games. Please stop making everything about your gripe against narrativist games. That one-note-song gets old fast.

 

[Campbell]

One of the biggest things is just getting to the point and reducing process overhead. Like how instead of the intricate resolution process Warhammer Fantasy uses Warhammer - The Old World just goes straight to the flavorful wounds you have to deal with. Get hit and either take a wound or become staggered. No intermediate steps needed.

There's been a real emphasis on handling time and getting to the results we expect to see.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm not speaking solely about narrative games. I mentioned 5e D&D and OSR games. Please stop making everything about your gripe against narrativist games. That one-note-song gets old fast.

Give me some examples of what you're talking about then, instead of just generalities.

 

[Aldarc]

Give me some examples of what you're talking about then, instead of just generalities.

Respectfully, Micah. My post is not just generalities. My post does list examples. That said, it's not my responsibility to give you anything.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Respectfully, Micah. My post is not just generalities. My post does list examples. That said, it's not my responsibility to give you anything.

Nor is it mine to change my opinion because you've grown tired of the one I have. You're the one who decided to be cute and reverse all your statements to show me up. I don't recall going after your opinion.

 

[Aldarc]

One of the biggest things is just getting to the point and reducing process overhead. Like how instead of the intricate resolution process Warhammer Fantasy uses Warhammer - The Old World just goes straight to the flavorful wounds you have to deal with. Get hit and either take a wound or become staggered. No intermediate steps needed.

There's been a real emphasis on handling time and getting to the results we expect to see.

I think that has likely been part of a desire to design with group time sensitivity in mind. Shorter campaigns. Shorter time per game session. And so on.

 

[gban007]

Nor is it mine to change my opinion because you've grown tired of the one I have. You're the one who decided to be cute and reverse all your statements to show me up. I don't recall going after your opinion.

I didnt take Aldarcs stateme as trying for a gotcha, but to try and understand / confirm what style of gaming you like. If in a list of things that new mechanics are heading for, you dont like most, it does suggest you prefer the inverse. It may be more that you were comfortable with the level of each one currently without pushing further in that direction, but then I think Aldarcs first response would have been a good one to make that clear when you responded, rather than assuming bad faith.
These are just subjective opinions on what sort of game elements people prefer,.so if you did prefer one or the other of Aldarcs lists, I dont see why that would be an issue or a gotcha.

 

[gban007]

Nor is it mine to change my opinion because you've grown tired of the one I have. You're the one who decided to be cute and reverse all your statements to show me up. I don't recall going after your opinion.

All Aldarc did was list what he thought made dor what comes through in modern mechanics, as relates to the OP. You then came in with an opinion on the list in terms of what mechanics you prefer / like (which Aldarc never an opinion on for you to 'go after', and not so relating to the OP) , so I dont see why it is an issue for Aldarc to probe further into an opinion you gave somewhat un asked for?

 

[thefutilist]

Then what's the point of the text? It won't cover everything but the point of the text is to try to lead you to good bameplay.

Well you need to understand what the constituent parts are doing to use them well but more fundamentally the text can't give you an understanding of why a decision criteria is fun. Here's a practical example that comes up in a load of different games.

Say you're playing A savvyhead and you're in love with the NPC hardholder. We have a scene where you go and express your love to them and at this point we're waiting for the MC to say what happens.

By the rules as I interpret them the MC has two different ways of dealing with this.

They can choose an MC move and make it. Establishing fiction after the fact to line up with the move. Say they decide to 'put them in a spot', they then think of some fiction that puts the character in a spot, say 'If you loved me you'd do x' or whatever.

OR

They can think about what the Hardholder would do in this circumstance and then do that. Which in my experience is more akin to having a response to the fiction and going with the response. They just feel the hardholder would return the Savvyheads expression of love.

The book may tell you that there are two ways of choosing and even give criteria 'if it's a question you care about then choose the second way.' In play though, you've got to kind of come to the experience yourself.

Do I care? Do I know enough or feel strongly enough about the hardholder to be able to make that decision or should I default to a move? and so on.


Or another example. Say the PC's are going to go and try and take over the old water works from Lojacks gang. How many gang members are there? How many gang members I decide are there has a massive impact on which way the fight will go in the same way it does in D&D when deciding how many monsters the PCs face in an encounter. The book doesn't give good advice on that at all.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I didnt take Aldarcs stateme as trying for a gotcha, but to try and understand / confirm what style of gaming you like. If in a list of things that new mechanics are heading for, you dont like most, it does suggest you prefer the inverse. It may be more that you were comfortable with the level of each one currently without pushing further in that direction, but then I think Aldarcs first response would have been a good one to make that clear when you responded, rather than assuming bad faith.
These are just subjective opinions on what sort of game elements people prefer,.so if you did prefer one or the other of Aldarcs lists, I dont see why that would be an issue or a gotcha.

I expect you're right. I suppose I get defensive since so many people (obviously not everyone) seem to resent my opinions being different from theirs.