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

[zakael19]

You're missing the point. People aren't going to stop thinking that way just because a game tells them to. Some approaches to engaging with a game world are largely independent of a game. You don't have to like that, but its absolutely true.

You’re asserting an opinion here, mine is different. I’ve never had a player in a game with clear and separate designs for players and NPCs that fronts it in the rules be surprised when something happens in the fiction that is different. I have had it come up in 5e D&D. Given that, my going in position is that that sort of open and clear design ethos makes a difference in player expectations.

 

[Aldarc]

I pulled this section out, because I think you're broadly right here (in that there's a rejection of adventure path style or sometimes even Hickman revolution altogether play structures) but the specific elements you call out are in incompatible tension. You can't both leave blanks and create a non-linear dungeon, and play to find out as it's usually used is incompatible with a sufficiently realized sandbox. Both are resistance to railroads, but in different ways and possibly different understanding of what a railroad is (or at least what about it is problematic).

Plus, that's all sitting alongside the improv informed actual play derived DMing advice that's completely embracing cooperative storytelling as the core of the activity. I think there's a core of modern play there that's actually closer to classic AP stuff, just with authority redistributed not just between the GM/players, but between the module writer and the people at the table. Players slide in and out of playing characters, writing arcs for those characters and making choices for those characters in response to the GM's material. Which of those modes is ascendent at any given moment is worked out by group understanding of the shared unfolding story.

You're welcome to think that. Good day.

 

[zakael19]

Eh. I could name several of relatively recent vintage that are overtly simulationist that don't think they're "retro" and in some respects absolutely aren't. It may not be as popular an experience as it once was, but its still the most obviously appropriate way to approach some kinds of survival horror, for example.

In other words they may not be exceptionally modern, but they aren't explicitly retro, either.

Can you share some examples? Genuinely curious here, I'm not super familiar with the games in the survival horror etc side of the hobby.

 

[Lanefan]

I don’t know if I entirely agree. I think you’re onto something with how the mechanics drive play in some modern games (AW and its more faithful derivatives) but I also think that the binary pass/fail does similar work in a more traditional approach.

The mechanics still dictate the type of outcome. The rules may also say what actually happens on a success or failure, or may call on the GM to do so.

Like if an NPC attacks me and the rules say they score a hit, then the rules may also say that my character takes damage, and the rules may also say that damage is sufficient to kill my character or otherwise take them out of play.

Is that not the mechanics driving play?

Not necessarily. Someone chose within the run of play to make that combat happen, and then the combat gets turned over to the mechanics to sort out how it resolves. Same as if someone chooses in-game to climb a difficult wall - the player makes that choice and then it gets turned over to the mechanics to sort out what comes of the attempt.

So, the play drives itself until it hits a point where mechanics need to be invoked, then the mechanics do their thing; and in so doing, while they certainly affect the play that comes after those mechanics have resolved it's hard to say they drive it (other than negating some immediate next moves e.g. if I fail to climb the wall I can't then declare my next action to be jumping down into the courtyard on the other side) assuming any reasonable degree of player agency.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Sad, but true.

That said, if people like the game they're playing enough then they'll make the time - and keep on making the time - to play it.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

To me, those seem like selling points of not-old-school games.

Old-school to me is, by contrast:
--- story-emergent, i.e. most if not all of the story only becomes apparent in hindsight (but note this does not equate to "mechanics first")
--- GM accepts and does the bulk of the mechanical work; the players focus on playing their characters without necessarily even knowing how a lot of things work behind the screen
--- only one of pass or fail on a roll has to be consequential or relevant in order for the roll to occur (i.e. 'nothing happens' is always a valid outcome)
--- players' input to setting is limited to what their characters can do.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

When 4e came in with its "bloodied" mechanic I had hopes that it was the start of a move within D&D design toward a (relatively speaking!) more simulative injury and healing system.

Still waiting..........

 

[zakael19]

To me, those seem like selling points of not-old-school games.

Old-school to me is, by contrast:
--- story-emergent, i.e. most if not all of the story only becomes apparent in hindsight (but note this does not equate to "mechanics first")
--- GM accepts and does the bulk of the mechanical work; the players focus on playing their characters without necessarily even knowing how a lot of things work behind the screen
--- only one of pass or fail on a roll has to be consequential or relevant in order for the roll to occur (i.e. 'nothing happens' is always a valid outcome)
--- players' input to setting is limited to what their characters can do.

I think this is where we probably once again need to note that the set of gameplay principles and mechanics that have grown up over the ~15ish years of OSR blogging and resultant games designed to facilitate them are their own things and just not "old school games." EG: Cairn and Mythic Bastionland and HMTW are O/NSR but follow along with what @Aldarc posted. Hell, an excellent example of this is the stress placed on "player skill" as a core problem solving mechanism, which is very much out of character.

 

[Thomas Shey]

You’re asserting an opinion here,

I'm asserting an observable fact. Note "some"used in that second sentence. I can't speak for how common it is, but I can absolutely say its true with at least some of the player populace, and if you feel the need to challenge that just ask within this thread. So unless you'd like to claim that multiple people are lying about their own views, no, its not just an opinion.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Can you share some examples? Genuinely curious here, I'm not super familiar with the games in the survival horror etc side of the hobby.

The one that comes immediately to mind is Outbreak: Undead, but I think I'd argue Red Markets leans fairly heavily into that, too, though its focus is different.