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

[Aldarc]

Here I disagree. I think that as with many things in Daggerheart there are multiple reasons they aren't always on.

Your disagreement is unnecessary. I did not say that it was only for this reason.

And from a mathematical perspective Daggerheart tries to use very 5eish numbers for target numbers to make things easy to switch. But the Duality Dice are pretty close to d20+3. (Not perfect but pretty close in range, variance, and outcomes) so you need to pull three points back somehow; at level 1 your primary stat is +2 not +3 and there's no proficiency bonus because the duality dice provides that. Mathematically Experiences are closer to Expertise.

The game still leans towards flatter math than 5e D&D because numbers aren't really going up even as much as 5e D&D with its proficiency bonuses, stats, and other floating bonuses.

 

[soviet]

Hit points have been around long before "6-8 times a day" was a thing, and you can absolutely use them as part of a sim mechanic provided they are used in tandem with a long-term injury system of some kind. In that case they become mostly stamina points outside of the occasional need for contact, like poison. The reason hit points are a problem is because it's impossible to actually be injured, and because everything that can possibly happen to you heals overnight. Deal with that and you can go a long toward hit points making sense.

I agree that this is possible, and I think Rolemaster's implementation is basically this. However, no edition or variation of D&D has ever done it.

 

[soviet]

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.

I imagine what they resent is the constant insertion of those opinions. Imagine if I were to post 'I don't like 5e' multiple times in every 5e thread.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I agree that this is possible, and I think Rolemaster's implementation is basically this. However, no edition or variation of D&D has ever done it.

Maybe not, but it's still a good idea, and some games based on a version of D&D have done it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I imagine what they resent is the constant insertion of those opinions. Imagine if I were to post 'I don't like 5e' multiple times in every 5e thread.

Well, we would have something to talk about . That's all I'm looking for. Nobody in my real life to talk gaming with at the level I like.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

'Play to find out which of two things happen', sounds great.

What is this? Why there are only two possibilities? In pretty normal trad approach the players decide where to go, what goals to pursue, who to bed, marry or kill etc, etc. Hardly just two possibilities. That certain details of the external world are predetermined, does not mean we are not playing to find out what happens. In fact, as a GM, I predetermine certain things especially to facilitate this. The board is set, and I no longer can just decide that things are differently in order to push the events into some specific direction.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I feel like we're on the verge of rehashing the same points all over again. "Play to find out" is a strong signal that you as a player of this game should be looking for enjoyment in surprising outcomes; the bit that is delightful is watching novelty that no player could have anticipated unfold. That joy runs directly counter to manipulating the game state to force an expected outcome to unfold. "What is the outcome of these choices?" vs. "did I make the right choices (or at least a set of right choices) to get what I want?"

Those are incompatible and I read "play to find out" as advising players they should look for the enjoyment of play to be in the former, and not in the latter.

OK, I see what you're saying. Thank you for elaborating. As I understand you you're talking about the difference between (broadly) filling a situation with drama fuel and watching (without particular preference as a player) to see how it explodes, versus a kind of skilled play approach where we have a particular expected/desired outcome (in terms of gam or sim considerations) and we are actively trying to get there. That's an interesting distinction.

Yeah this is distinction I've also alluded to in the past and it does not have proper agreed upon nomenclature. And tension between these can exist in any game, but I have been very aware of it in the Blades in the Dark game I've been playing in. Like on one hand the game probably expects you to "play characters like stolen cars" and enjoy the chaos, but it also has hella lot incentives that push the players to play really carefully, You need to consider whether every move is worth it, as every dice roll risks some unpleasant consequence. There are clocks, stress and heat you need to manage, and this encourages flinching before the crap really hits the fan. And there are entanglements, traumas and harm that are quite consequential and have far more teeth and are harder to recover from than some loss of HP in D&D.

I have pointed this out before, but it did not gain much traction, but to me these conflict is very apparent and I am not quite sure how the designer expected people to approach the game. Am I supposed to drive a stolen car or am I supposed to carefully manage various crap gauges to ensure success?

 

[zakael19]

I have pointed this out before, but it did not gain much traction, but to me these conflict is very apparent and I am not quite sure how the designer expected people to approach the game. Am I supposed to drive a stolen car or am I supposed to carefully manage various crap gauges to ensure success?

You're supposed to embrace the chaos and collapse. Seriously, that's the point of the game. I think we tried to hammer home how the Player Best Practices demand this in other threads, and the interlocking systems are indeed supposed to make it hard for your fledgling crew to thrive (that's literally the point of the game after all). Indeed, teh first entry in the Practices (Embrace the Scoundrel's Life) directly addresses everything you just posted.

There's a reason most FITD games after BITD + other inspired designs like Daggerheart (and indeed even NSR games like His Majesty the Worm) move the "player expectations/practices/etc" right up front now. These are a set of behaviors that lead to the best outcomes with the mechanics as designed.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I have pointed this out before, but it did not gain much traction, but to me these conflict is very apparent and I am not quite sure how the designer expected people to approach the game. Am I supposed to drive a stolen car or am I supposed to carefully manage various crap gauges to ensure success?

You're supposed to drive like a stolen car with the cops after you. The risk is part of the fun, and you're risking in multiple directions but if you don't drive the cops are going to grab you. So go fast, cut the corners tight, and risk wrapping your car round a tree. Can you make it thorugh? Maybe. The journey is part of the fun - and more fun because of the challenge.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You're supposed to embrace the chaos and collapse. Seriously, that's the point of the game. I think we tried to hammer home how the Player Best Practices demand this in other threads, and the interlocking systems are indeed supposed to make it hard for your fledgling crew to thrive (that's literally the point of the game after all). Indeed, teh first entry in the Practices (Embrace the Scoundrel's Life) directly addresses everything you just posted.

There's a reason most FITD games after BITD + other inspired designs like Daggerheart (and indeed even NSR games like His Majesty the Worm) move the "player expectations/practices/etc" right up front now. These are a set of behaviors that lead to the best outcomes with the mechanics as designed.

In my group I am the one who plays most recklessly (I even took trauma to justify it!) But as a lot of that fallout is communal, I don't want to cause too much crap to the whole team the other players would like to avoid. And they're playing more carefully. And I am not at all surprised they do. It is very hard to not care about the consequences. I think the game has counterproductive incentives for the expected playstyle.

Like there are a ton of mechanical detail about controlling stress, heat clocks etc and it is weird to focus so much on that if you are actually not expected to game the system with these to avoid the fallout.