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

[Aldarc]

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

In some respects, they also exist in reaction to 3e D&D, and how that game was commonly being played in praxis: i.e., mechanics first ("I roll Perception," "I use Diplomacy on the guard."). For example, I believe that Vincent Baker had 3e D&D in mind when designing how Moves worked. Likewise, the OSR was having a similar dicussion about fiction-first approaches in response to the common 3e praxis of mechanics-first approaches to skills.

There’s significant overlap in the goals of these movements… and a lot of it can be summed up as demanding more principled GMing.

I debated whether or not to add "Explicit Play Principles" to my list of contemporary approaches to TTRPG mechanics. As I am required to say, these things were there previously, but I think a lot of contemporary TTRPGs tend to be more explicit, up front, and opinionated about the principles and best practices for GMs and players. Doesn't mean it's present in all contemporary games, but there has definitely been a rise in including them.

What are the play principles for players or GMs in 5e D&D?* I don't know. But I can tell you the play principles of GMs and players in a variety of "narrative games" (e.g., PbtA, FitD, Daggerheart, Fabula Ultima, etc.) and OSR/NuSR games (e.g., Shadowdark, Cairn, Knave, etc.).

* For those sensitive to me criticizing just 5e D&D, I will also fully admit that Dragonbane - a game that I highly enjoy - is in the same boat. Dragonbane is an unopinionated game, and I can't recall Free League talking about the play principles or best practices GMs and players should adopt for this game. I wish these principles and best practices were there in Dragonbane too.

 

[pemerton]

Nope. You are 100% wrong. there is no D&D rule whatsoever that says "A failed search roll created a net new encounter.

I never said there was. I know the (Gygaxian) AD&D rules pretty well.

What I said, which you quoted, is this:

There is a clear process in classic D&D: the GM maps and keys a dungeon; the movement of the PCs through the dungeon is tracked on the map; what they see/hear/experience is narrated by the GM based on the key, with doors playing an especially important role in this respect. Whether one wants to call those processes of tracking movement on the map and having reference to the key as "mechanics" seems secondary; but they do mean that the outcomes of the players' declared actions are not determined by GM fiat at the moment of resolution.

In D&D, GURPS, OSR = the GM places a problem, and the players roll various tasks to address that problem. So if there is a dungeon of monsters, then the players roll to find the monsters. Pass they do, fail they dont.

In classic D&D, the players aren't rolling to find monsters. They are declaring actions in order to learn the map and the key, with the ultimate goal of obtaining XP from treasure. Some of those actions are resolved via dice rolls. Some are resolved via (what Ron Edwards, following Jonathan Tweet) calls drama.

Contra what you posted, it is not true that "it was the GM who put those there, so they don't even truly exist until the GM says they do".

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."

There is such a rule in classic D&D. I haven't got my copy of Moldvay Basic ready to hand. But in Gygax's DMG, it is found in Appendix C (p 190): "Check for encounters every three turns".

 

[pemerton]

The Con-18 Elf, for example. The PCs in-character might wonder how he got so starchy, and eventually discover that he gained 3 points of Con in his youth by stumbling on to and reading the Book of Toughy-Tough-Toughness. This might (as in, probably would!) spur the PCs to ask if said Book still exists and maybe send them in search of it, or what became of it, and boom: not only do you now have a bit more setting lore, you might even get an adventure or two out of it!

If the NPC Elf can stumble over this book in his youth, why can't the PCs? Why are only PCs obliged to adventure in order to find it?

 

[Lanefan]

If the NPC Elf can stumble over this book in his youth, why can't the PCs? Why are only PCs obliged to adventure in order to find it?

Maybe the NPC Elf was adventuring at the time...

Sometimes as DM I'll throw in seemingly-random items for parties to (maybe) find while adventuring, unrelated to the current adventure or mission, as potential seeds for later investigation or further adventures*. A long-thought-lost book of ancient and possibly world-changing lore casually thrown in a pile of junk in a corner somewhere. A filthy sodden tapestry rolled up in a basement that when cleaned up and hung holds valuable clues or information about people or events the party are otherwise unaware of. Things like that.

If the party doesn't find the item, or does but doesn't follow up, it's no skin off my nose; but if they both find it and follow up on it then that gives me something to run.

* - the classic literary example of this idea, of course, is Bilbo stumbling on to the One Ring while on what seemed at the time to be a completely unrelated mission; and would have been had Gandalf not later followed up on what the Ring represented.