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

[Crimson Longinus]

I totally agree that in many newer games, especially those of more narrativist style, the mechanics drive the story in significantly different way than in more traditional, perhaps more simulationistic games. I think it is pretty salient difference and something I would imagine a lot of people considering a selling point of such games. Strange to see people who like such games denying it.

 

[Neonchameleon]

AD&D NPCs didn't even follow PC level limits. Most did look a bit like PCs but nowhere was this necessary.

And the reason MHRP works symmetrically is MHRP doesn't have orthodox chargen; you just write down how your character works and it fits on an index card. Even GURPS 3e said to just write down stats and skip the pointbuy character generation.

 

[billd91]

I’m sure games prior to this point used it, but not any versions of D&D. Or at least, not consistently. I do recall some products that had NPCs that were clearly designed the same as PCs… but there are numerous contrary examples.

Given that some of the encounter tables in the 1e DMG included encounters with druids, wizards, assassins, fighters, adventuring parties, etc, and no stats for such characters were present in the Monster Manual, how do you think those NPCs were generated?

 

[SableWyvern]

Given that some of the encounter tables in the 1e DMG included encounters with druids, wizards, assassins, fighters, adventuring parties, etc, and no stats for such characters were present in the Monster Manual, how do you think those NPCs were generated?

If they're being generated by me, then most likely by the allocation of AC, HD and few other key values, and certainly not by following the normal, full character generation procedure. Why generate a bunch of stats you don't need?

One of the reasons I ceased to enjoy 3.x D&D and it's close derivatives was because I felt (in retrospect, perhaps erroneously) an obligation to go through the whole process instead of just eyeballing appropriate values.

 

[TwoSix]

Connecting the Hickman Revolutionaries to the Forge in the way you seem to here is, in my opinion, a significant misread of the Forge. It also very much ignores that many OSR procedures share the same goal as that of the Forge. And that’s to resist the idea of GM as storyteller.

Exactly. The Forge and the OSR were both branches that were in direct repudiation of Hickman-style storytelling that dominated in the ‘90s.

 

[zakael19]

That is a wildly incorrect assumption and isn't even stated in OSR games either.

It does appear in B/X and OSE at least, and most NSR games I've seen? Core dungeon procedure:

• Turn starts, decide Actions
• Check for Random Encounters / Wandering Monsters
• Describe what happens
• End turn.

In HMTW, it's "Roll on the Meatgrinder Table each time you enter a new room" which is time + random encounter in one table.

 

[hawkeyefan]

So that's still incorrect. There is no actual statement in D&D and GURPS , there is not actual mechanical rule, that says "you rolled to search and time passed and thus GM must roll for an encounter."

Dungeon/Exploration Turns.

These dictate resource management and the possibility of random encounters, key aspects of dungeon exploration. They are absolutely designed to keep play moving and help portray a dynamic environment.

That is a wildly incorrect assumption and isn't even stated in OSR games either. Just waving a hand and saying "The GM should invent problems" = isn't a mechanic, and doesn't' even really give a common standard of play - since that statement can be interpreted so many way.

I would say that D&D 5e and many similar games involve handwaving and a GM creating problems as he pleases.

But that is not what I’ve been talking about.

If you don’t think turns and encounter rolls are mechanics, then I’m not sure what to tell you.

Given that some of the encounter tables in the 1e DMG included encounters with druids, wizards, assassins, fighters, adventuring parties, etc, and no stats for such characters were present in the Monster Manual, how do you think those NPCs were generated?

How do you generate them when you were running AD&D, Bill?

 

[Thomas Shey]

In RQ, non-human creatures are statted in a way that parallels PC stats. But they aren't built via a parallel process (eg there is no analogue to 3E D&D's "creature type as class" - the only other RPG I can think of that tries to emulate that is HARP).

Depends what you mean and where you start counting. PC-playable non-humans did have parallel processes as of RQ3. Random encountered ones weren't at least clearly done that way, but then, neither were random encountered humans. It wasn't like the game had classes anyay, so its hard to tell what that even means.

 

[Thomas Shey]

AD&D NPCs didn't even follow PC level limits. Most did look a bit like PCs but nowhere was this necessary.

And the reason MHRP works symmetrically is MHRP doesn't have orthodox chargen; you just write down how your character works and it fits on an index card. Even GURPS 3e said to just write down stats and skip the pointbuy character generation.

Though in practice, with a point build system its hard to really talk about this distinction since point assignment at start is fundamenttally arbitrary and can vary from campaign to campaign. Only way the non-parallel applies is if the NPC has abilities a PC is not permitted to acquire at all.

 

[Deset Gled]

I think there needs to be a discussion of "mechanics" are so that there can be understanding of what GM fiat is. Because GM fiat is not a mechanic.

In WEG D6, GM fiat isn't just a mechanic, it's the core mechanic:

"As the referee, you have to know the game rules and interpret them during play. The players can have their characters “try” to do almost anything; the rules tell you how to determine if they succeed or fail.

It’s a three step process:

1. Determine how hard the task is and pick a difficulty number.

2. Determine which skill is used for the task and have the character roll their skill dice. (If the character doesn’t have the skill, they roll their attribute dice.)

3. If the character rolls higher than the difficulty number, they succeed. If they don't, they fail."

The GM always sets a difficulty number, and they are free to pick it completely by fiat. And in a system with no auto success or failure on a roll, that means they can create a new reality with every check. Completely re-writing the world this way would be ridiculous, of course. But it would still be following a mechanic.

It's seems to me that this is the second or third time you've tried to separate mechanics from not-mechanics and it's been trivial to point out mechanics for things you claim aren't. Here's the thing: anything can be a game mechanic. All someone has to do is write a rule for it. And in a world with thousands of TTRPGs written over half a century, someone has probably tried it.