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

[Aldarc]

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 was honestly surprised to hear that some of the things that I listed were moving away from Micah's preferences, given that he is a self-described "OSR fan," and some of these things are IMHO key features and selling points of OSR play: e.g., fiction first gaming, reduced GM workload, consequential rolls, etc. (The only one I would have guessed would be a sticking point were the Narrative Tags.) So yeah, it was never intended to be a "gotcha" or sarcastic. More like fishing for clarification because, again, I was genuinely surprised to hear that these were things that moved away from from Micah's idiomatic preferences.

My list isn't necessarily even representative of "things that I like." (I don't think that personal preferences are even pertinent to the OP discussion.) The list is meant to be descriptive of commonalities I have seen in contemporary design trends with plausible explanations.

 

[aramis erak]

Mechanically Reducing GM Workload: Reducing the mental overhang for running the game on the GM side of things through things like rolling random charts in OSR games, NPC/difficulty generation in Cypher System, removing map and key play in Narrative games, etc. Were things like random charts there before modern games? Yes. But I also think that we see them now for the purpose of making running the game easier for GMs. Even Advantage/Disadvantage help in this regard.

charts for reducing GM workload have been present since 1977's Traveller (classic '77, to be specific) - Random Patron encounters, random person encounters, random weapons for said persons. We can push it back to '74 for the reactions table and treasure table, but I don't see the latter as making a GM's life any the easier; the treasure tables are often more effort than they're worth.

 

[Aldarc]

charts for reducing GM workload have been present since 1977's Traveller (classic '77, to be specific) - Random Patron encounters, random person encounters, random weapons for said persons. We can push it back to '74 for the reactions table and treasure table, but I don't see the latter as making a GM's life any the easier; the treasure tables are often more effort than they're worth.

I am keenly aware that charts have been present prior to contemporary games:

Mechanically Reducing GM Workload: Reducing the mental overhang for running the game on the GM side of things through things like rolling random charts in OSR games, NPC/difficulty generation in Cypher System, removing map and key play in Narrative games, etc. Were things like random charts there before modern games? Yes. But I also think that we see them now for the purpose of making running the game easier for GMs. Even Advantage/Disadvantage help in this regard.

Emphasis mine in bold red. (Edit: If you are color blind, I apologize in advance if you can't see that. I try to be sensitive to such things.)

However, I think that there has been something of a renewed interest in things like rolling on random charts. I believe that there are reasons for that. One is reducing GM workload. Another is something else I mentioned: that desire to resist GM railroads through emergent play.

 

[payn]

I am keenly aware that charts have been present prior to contemporary games:

Emphasis mine in bold red. (Edit: If you are color blind, I apologize in advance if you can't see that. I try to be sensitive to such things.)

However, I think that there has been something of a renewed interest in things like rolling on random charts. I believe that there are reasons for that. One is reducing GM workload. Another is something else I mentioned: that desire to resist GM railroads through emergent play.

I think an issue with random tables and why they fell out of favor is how little thought was put into their execution. Early games had piles of them and often they made little sense. The outcomes were funny in a random way, but not satisfying in delivering a good experience way. I think developing ways in which they fix that execution is a modern interest.

 

[aramis erak]

A few things:

What I've found as a player and GM in a game like Apocalypse World (or more trad games generally), is that changing character backstory from what I thought it was is unsatisfying.

In those games I want to advocate for a characters worldview. How does their worldview work out for them? That's the important bit to me, the central core that determines the meaning of play. Changing it up is...eh. Not conducive to emergent stories about human meaning, in my opinion.

Having a given worldview in no way guarantees it's true. I can't give the best examples in detail, as they are current politics... Let's just say, a bunch of people are realizing their worldview in re their governments is unsupportable by actual events and how the government reacts to them.

Is it just preference? maybe but I'm not sure.

Largely, yes.
You don't like people interfering with your backstory. I, as a GM, forbade any backstory longer than a paragraph, simply because past that, I'm invariably going to forget something and annoy the person, and I'm not into reading backstory.
If a player is generating more backstory than the game gives, and by more than a single paragraph, it's more than what I, as a GM, want to deal with. Further, I take cues from Mr. Wick quite often - a backstory hidden inside the player's head is boring bovid-excrement for the rest of the group - it adds nothing to their play experience, and often interacts poorly. A shared one, if short and succinct, adds to everyone's play...

@Neonchameleon I mean from memory the text says three things about prep. It says 'it gives you interesting stuff to say.' Which might fit or infer your interpretation about the canonicity of the prep.

It also says 'binding decisions' and 'prep demands', which clearly do not fit what you're saying and state the opposite. Clocks only seem to work if they're canon.

Clocks are canon the moment they start ticking, in as much as what they work is defined then

But to some degree it's besides the point. I don't think you get good gameplay by following a text. A lot depends on assumptions going in. For instance I absolutely reject roleplaying having anything to do with theatrical improv.

Nice worldview... but the reality is a lot of game designs have been influenced by Theatrical Improv...
Such as most everything by D. Vincent Baker, Meg Baker, or half the Forge-inspired games.
"Yes, and…/yes, but…" is standard for theatrical improv. Anywhere you see that, you're seeing theatrical improv's influence.
If you want to see Yes, But in TI, happens about once per episode in the American version of Whose Line is it Anyway?... Ryan and Wayne use it a bit.

I am keenly aware that charts have been present prior to contemporary games:

Traveller explicitly puts them in as a GM aid in play. Not a prep tool; traveller has a lot of those, too.
Charts for GM aid in play are nothing modern. They're almost as old as RPGs themselves.

 

[SableWyvern]

If in a list of things that new mechanics are heading for, you dont like most, it does suggest you prefer the inverse.

Only if you assume all choices are binary, and intentionally pick silly things to be the opposites to the things you like. If you don't like spicy food, you must prefer bland food. If you don't like exceeding the speed limit while driving, you must prefer driving as slow as possible. If you don't like horror movies you must want movies where nothing scary ever happens.

If someone says, "Striving to reduce the mechanical workload on the GM isn't a particularly important goal for me," do you really believe it's a good faith response to say, "So you must prefer to increase the mechanical workload on the GM then?" Because to me, that reads as a completely disingenuous statement designed to score cheap points. We're excluding the possibility that reducing the workload is perfectly acceptable, just not at the expense of certain other things, or that the someone has already found the ideal workload balance and is happy to remain there.

I believe it's important that die rolls can sometimes have results that some people would consider inconsequential. To distil that down to saying, "Sablewyvern prefers inconsequential rolls" strips all context and is not an accurate restatement of my position. So on, and so forth, for each point.

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.

From where I'm sitting, you were completely justified.

 

[Aldarc]

Charts for GM aid in play are nothing modern. They're almost as old as RPGs themselves.

This is getting tiring and a little frustrating, Aramis. Are you reading my post or not before you respond? I acknowledge this point in my original post. I even highlighted this exact point in my previous post. There is a certain point where it feels like you aren't doing even basic due diligence by actually reading my post.

Were things like random charts there before modern games? Yes.

Here. This time I have even excluded the surrounding text so it should be easier for you to read. Maybe this time you will notice and not respond by Aramisplaining that they randomized charts are nothing new. Yes, I know they are not new. You don't have to keep telling me this point.

I think an issue with random tables and why they fell out of favor is how little thought was put into their execution. Early games had piles of them and often they made little sense. The outcomes were funny in a random way, but not satisfying in delivering a good experience way. I think developing ways in which they fix that execution is a modern interest.

That is good insight, though I am not as familiar with the quality of these older randomized tables. I am just glad that modern games took a renewed interest in them.

 

[pemerton]

Here are contemporary trends that I see in terms of modern approaches to TTRPG mechanics:

Good list!

• Fiction First Gaming: this was something of a reaction against what some in the hobby saw as mechanics first approaches in 3e D&D and 4e D&D. (Whether or not you agree with that characterization of these games is not the point.) We see the pivot back to fiction first with things more in the indie scene, both on the narrative side (e.g., PbtA, Fate, FitD, etc.) and OSR side. I think that Mike Mearls tried to also move things back more towards fiction first with 5e D&D - keeping in mind that he had cited Dungeon World in this regard while working on 5e D&D - but the results are IMHO questionable.
• Freeform Narrative Tags for PCs: These are mechanics like aspects in Fate, traits in Cortex and Fabula Ultima, backgrounds in 13th Age, tags in City of Mist/Legend in the Mist, and experiences in Daggerheart. I mentioned these earlier.

For these two, I think maybe Over the Edge (1992) is the modern beginning. A bit later, Maelstrom Storytelling (1998, from memory) and HeroWars (2000) use free-form descriptors as key tools for describing characters and situations.

What's interesting (and here I gently touch on your mention of 4e D&D) is how these sorts of descriptors get incorporated into robust resolution systems like extended contests (in Maelstrom and HW and (as I experienced them) skill challenges) or the action scene resolution framework in MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic. The way these systems interplay fiction and mechanics is (as best I can tell) a new thing in RPGing. (D&D hit points could, perhaps, have moved in the same direction, but as it turns out they haven't.) And it informs other "modern" RPGs that don't use free descriptors in the same way, like how compromises are established in a Burning Wheel Duel of Wits, or any Torchbearer 2e extended conflict.

• Mechanically Reducing GM Workload: Reducing the mental overhang for running the game on the GM side of things through things like rolling random charts in OSR games, NPC/difficulty generation in Cypher System, removing map and key play in Narrative games, etc. Were things like random charts there before modern games? Yes. But I also think that we see them now for the purpose of making running the game easier for GMs. Even Advantage/Disadvantage help in this regard.

In the same general space as this, I see a trend towards reducing the fictional overhead on the GM, by adopting a combined approach to fiction and mechanics that spares the GM from having to keep track of a whole lot of fiction that is secondary to, or even peripheral to, game play. Part of what supports this is developing mechanical devices for establishing and evolving salient fiction, including background fiction, that doesn't require detailing everything and tracking it all via imagined granular causation. The example I know best is Torchbearer 2e, and the way it handles camp and town events. I think BitD factions would be another example.

Classic D&D dungeon building is not too far from this; but there was no development towards a stylised/scaffolded/structured approach to other setting elements. Rather, in the 1980s, the trend was in the other direction, towards a very workload-intensive approach to building and managing the fiction (see eg Rolemaster's Campaign Law; or the AD&D Wilderness Survival Guide).

• Anti-Railroad Revolutionaries: It's the advice. Prep scenarios, not plots. It's about "jaquaysing the dungeon." It's the randomized tables. You see it in narrative games and OSR games. The reemphasis on sandbox games. It's about draw maps, leave blanks. It's in the play to find out. All of these design elements are not coincidental. These are principles and mechanics that have been incorporated into the writing and design as a means to resist railroading.
• Consequential Rolls: Rolling is not for uncertainty but for consequences, meaningful situations, and called for with some rhyme and reason. Even 5e D&D says not to call for a roll unless there are meaningful consequences for failure. Even in OSR spheres, where some are okay with "nothing happens to the door," a roll may advance the timer, risk the wandering monster, cause you to lose torchlight, etc.

These are pretty fundamental, and at least in the RPGs I play are pretty closely related - in that, important to the techniques used to avoid railroading is establishing a methodology for rolling the dice - when, why and what follows next - that is not "GM decides" at every moment. Prince Valiant (1989, I think?) is an early innovator here.

Anyway, like I said, good list!

 

[pemerton]

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.

I think it's more than just this: it's also about increasing the proportion of play time spent on the stuff that matters to the participants. So it's like the RPG design analogue of editing a film (or, at least, some aspects of editing).

Rolemaster is, for me at least, a striking illustration of the issue (because I've played so much of it). When it is performing at its peak, Rolemaster produces intricate detail of character and situation, and tremendous colour (especially in combat, because of the crit charts; but not only in combat). But there is a lot of slog - in record keeping, injury and recovery tracking, working through complicated resolution frameworks, rolling the dice that lead up to the crit rolls, etc - that doesn't generate this same degree of intensity and excitement.

A system that can generate all that colour, including the intricate detail, but without the intervening moments of slog, is - for me - just an improvement. Which is why I love Burning Wheel and Torchbearer! I'd play them in preference to RM even if I had the same endless time as I did when I was younger.

 

[Aldarc]

Good list!

Thanks. I apologize if I am unable to give proper dedication to your post as you give here to mine, but it's late and I am somewhat rushed for time before preparations for bed.

For these two, I think maybe Over the Edge (1992) is the modern beginning. A bit later, Maelstrom Storytelling (1998, from memory) and HeroWars (2000) use free-form descriptors as key tools for describing characters and situations.

A few days ago, I wrote up a post that went into more detail about one of the features that I associated with a lot of contemporary games: i.e., Player Created Narrative Tags. I made sure to mention the Founders and Early Adapters (e.g., Over the Edge, Risus RPG, HeroQuest, etc.) as well as the Popularizers around 2010 who helped bring these more into the mainstream (Fate, Cortex Plus, 13th Age). I then listed more recent games that utilized these mechanics (e.g., Fabula Ultima, City of Mists, Daggerheart, etc.). After an error wiped out everything that I wrote, I decided to scrap that idea and instead approached my post by examining the question in terms Daggerheart, which led to this post.

What's interesting (and here I gently touch on your mention of 4e D&D) is how these sorts of descriptors get incorporated into robust resolution systems like extended contests (in Maelstrom and HW and (as I experienced them) skill challenges) or the action scene resolution framework in MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic. The way these systems interplay fiction and mechanics is (as best I can tell) a new thing in RPGing. (D&D hit points could, perhaps, have moved in the same direction, but as it turns out they haven't.) And it informs other "modern" RPGs that don't use free descriptors in the same way, like how compromises are established in a Burning Wheel Duel of Wits, or any Torchbearer 2e extended conflict.

Also, while these Narrative Tag mechanics exist in other games, where and how they prop up differ. For example, Aspects were adopted in Blades in the Dark, but mostly as Consequences for Harm and not as character descriptors, backgrounds, or a pseudo-skill system.

I will (hopefully) respond to the rest of your post tomorrow when I have more time. Thanks for your response!