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

[Thomas Shey]

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.

The problem with this as I've mentioned before is that players usually know the mechanics to at least some extent, and knowledge of the kinds of outcomes and results mechanics produce is not a neutral arbiter; it effects people's decision making. Its the usual stupid blunt object example but people are a lot more likely by moderate levels to jump off a 30' cliff in D&D than in RuneQuest.

 

[Autumnal]

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, come on. How can anyone not be annoyed with the discussion of post-9/11 policy priorities with regard to…oh, this isn’t about the 5th edition of Roderick Nash’s (excellent, seminal) Wilderness And The American Mind? That may explain some of my infractions over the years.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

I don’t think those are the same things. One chooses to climb a wall. One may not choose to have a fight… the rules may dictate that one happens because the characters have done or tried to do something else. Maybe they decided to search a room and a random encounter occurs, maybe they chose a hex to explore, and an encounter is indicates by the GM’s notes.

The mechanics can be said to be driving play in these kinds of cases, no?

Yes, it may start with the player making a declaration… “I want to do X” but then the rules tell us how that goes, what happens as a reault… and then we’re in a new situation and the players are prompted to make some new decisions.

This is why I thibk there’s more to it than just “the mechanics are designed to drive play” because I think that’s one of the primary purpose of game mechanics and procedures regardless of the specific RPG.

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.

I feel it’s inaccurate to say that mechanics don’t drive play in this regard. If you fail to climb the wall, then you’ll need to go deal with the guards, or sneak in through the old sewer shaft… pushing play in some new direction, prompting some new decision by the players.

 

[Aldarc]

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

To me, it seems you misunderstand me.

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")

Again, not contradictory with what I was saying at all, and in fact it's what I had in mind for one way in which it manifests. But how in looks in OSR isn't necessarily how it exists in narrative games. But I am not proposing that all of these things exist equally in the same way across all sectors of the hobby.

--- 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

This is not contradictory with what I said. In OSR, the GM may have the bulk of the work, but that doesn't mean that the OSR community isn't looking for ways to reduce GM overhead: e.g., rulings not rules, random tables, rules light, ways to randomize maps and dungeons, etc. Again, this will look different with narrative games, neo-trad games, etc. But it's not as if my post was without examples with OSR in mind.

--- 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)

I established in my post how even a binary pass/fail often results in additional "pressures" in OSR play (e.g., wandering monster check, time, torches, resources, supplies, food, etc.). There is also more direction about when a roll should be called for. Also notice advice like this:

Shadowdark:

STAT CHECKS
The characters automatically succeed at what they are trained to do. Only use stat checks when there is time pressure and failure has dire consequences.

Knave 2e:

Most actions the PCs take should simply succeed or fail. Avoid making players roll for everything.

To be clear, when Ben says that "most actions the PCs take should simply succeed or fail," he is not talking about dice rolling. He's talking about action declarations.

Bugbears & Borderlands (by Sacrosanct):

As a general rule, if there isn’t going to be a negative result for failing something, it is better to assume the PC succeeds.

Dolmenwood:

Is a Roll Warranted?
The Referee must judge which situations warrant a roll of some kind (e.g. a Skill Check, Ability Check, or Saving Throw) and which do not. For tasks with no inherent danger and no time pressure, PCs with appropriate skills and tools should generally succeed automatically. As a general guideline, consider the following points.

Description: Does the player’s description of how they intend to approach the task sound feasible?

Skill: Does the PC have the required skill to perform the task? Characters with a specific background, Kindred, or Class may be more suited to the task than others. Note that all adventurers are assumed to have basic skills of dungeon and outdoor exploration (e.g. using ropes, lighting fires, mapping, etc.)—see Adventurer Competency, p150.

Tools: Does the PC have any tools required for the task?

Time: Is there any time pressure?

Danger: Is there any inherent danger in failure?

But consider what this also means. We should roll if there are consequences: i.e., when there is a danger and/or there is time pressure! Time is "something happens." The GM is responsible for tracking time, which they use for things like adjudicating wandering monster checks, rations, torches, players getting lost, etc.

All this lines up with what I wrote in my post:

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.

Emphasis in bold, mine.

--- players' input to setting is limited to what their characters can do.

I never imagined this would be something that Micah would like, which is why "Freeform Narrative Tags for PCs" is devoid of OSR examples.

 

[pemerton]

Daggerheart also advises GMs to consider a PC's experiences when deciding when rolls are called for or optionally let the player mark Stress for their character to succeed at the task without rolling.

That reminds me a bit of MHRP: a player can spend a Plot Point to automatically succeed in destroying/disabling a trait that is rated no higher than the ability they're using.

 

[pemerton]

Considering that literally every "modern" game I've seen come out this year has been explicit about the separation between PC and NPC design I think we can say that's a core characteristic. Even 5e.24 did this to a degree.

It does so explicitly because with the exception of things like “rivals” that use trimmed down powers and are presented in the fiction as “just like you” the games I’ve played that have embraced the separation as a design pillar are explicit that NPC and players are different right in the player-focused sections. Generally with something like “player characters are exceptional.”

World simulationism is not a core facet of modern design, it’s probably as classic as you can get. That doesn’t mean there aren’t plenty of games doing gentle refinement on the idea or still being published, but I don’t think anybody would consider them modern in a mechanical sense. In fact most of them are presenting themselves as openly backward looking or “retro” I think?

I think this issue of NPC and PC build and stats is an interesting one.

D&D did not try to establish any sort of parallel or equivalence between NPCs/creatures, and PCs, until 3E D&D. Then in 4e D&D NPCs/creatures have the same sort of statistical expression as PCs, but don't parallel them in their build rules.

Rolemaster is more like classic D&D in this respect; whereas the more modern RM variant HARP is closer to 3E D&D.

And Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic I think counts as a modern game, and it uses exactly the same stat block for a NPC as for a PC, except for substituting Doom Pool dice (a GM-side resource) for Plot Points (a player-side resource).

So I'd say it's more of a trend than a core characteristic.

 

[Aldarc]

FWIW, I don't think that contemporary approaches to TTRPG are necessarily opposed to simulationism as was earlier discussed. However, I suspect that it may have shifted somewhat from "simulation of game world as expressed through the mechanics" to "simulation of game world as expressed through the fiction." This is just me pondering. Not necessarily articulating a fully-thought out thesis.

Edit: For example, I think that this can be seen in how there was a subset of the OSR community that was intrigued by FKR. FKR is basically about minimal/minimized mechanics, but GM as the world simulator.

 

[zakael19]

"Freeform Narrative Tags for PCs" is devoid of OSR examples.

But I think rife with NSR ones (which is what, all the core OSR principles but distancing themselves from the reactionaries + changing mechanics away from pure retroclones?), in the way that you expressed this as a generalized tag. Shadowdark, Cairn, HMTW backgrounds/motifs/etc are all intended to be a randomized "hey my character should know/do/etc because..."

 

[Aldarc]

But I think rife with NSR ones (which is what, all the core OSR principles but distancing themselves from the reactionaries + changing mechanics away from pure retroclones?), in the way that you expressed this as a generalized tag. Shadowdark, Cairn, HMTW backgrounds/motifs/etc are all intended to be a randomized "hey my character should know/do/etc because..."

True enough, and good point. I wasn't sure if those would "count."