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

[Reynard]

or "a dozen different type resolutions and dice types for different systems is great!"

Ancient or modern, I think bespoke subsystems are great. Focused mechanics meant to do a specific thing to enhance play in that domain is far superior, in my mind, to forcing everything to use whatever arbitrary "core mechanic" drives combat or skill checks or whatever. Example: the journey rules you see in modern games, like The One Ring and A5E.

 

[VLessa]

Ancient or modern, I think bespoke subsystems are great. Focused mechanics meant to do a specific thing to enhance play in that domain is far superior, in my mind, to forcing everything to use whatever arbitrary "core mechanic" drives combat or skill checks or whatever. Example: the journey rules you see in modern games, like The One Ring and A5E.

Perhaps I wasn't very clear. I didn't really speak for unified or separate mechanics. My point was about qualities like simplicity, intuitiveness, clarity, etc while retaining the same intentionality and goals.

I also really like The One Ring. But I like it because it's bespoke mechanics carry intentionality. That's different from using a bazillion subsystems and complex math that are not really necessary to reach the game's goals, or because there was no design space to draw from besides a skirmish wargame, or because it's traditional luggage one feels obliged to carry just because every other game in the market also has carries it.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Ancient or modern, I think bespoke subsystems are great. Focused mechanics meant to do a specific thing to enhance play in that domain is far superior, in my mind, to forcing everything to use whatever arbitrary "core mechanic" drives combat or skill checks or whatever. Example: the journey rules you see in modern games, like The One Ring and A5E.

I think they are expensive. I consider complexity to be a cost (and extra subsystems to be a form of complexity) - and different people have different budgets. Are they worth it? It depends on what the game is trying to do, why they are there, and how well they are written. Are journey rules worth it in The One Ring? 100% because that's a big part of what the game is about and so it's worth spending the budget there. But I'm currently writing a game inspired by K-Pop Demonhunters; that thing absolutely does not want such rules. And games like AD&D with separate systems for everything look to me like someone's painted gold leaf all over everything.

 

[Deset Gled]

My objection to the term "Modern" is that the modern period in art ended in about the 1970s and modern architecture similarly. Modernism in music is the first half of the 20th Century. There will come a day when whatever we call modern ... isn't. So I'd always rather use something more descriptive.

Adding to this, another problem with the term "modern" is that it is interchangeably used for when things were created as it is for when things were popular. As examples in this thread have shown, many "modern" mechanics are older than people expect. So the term ends up being more about vibes than history. When those vibes include preferences is when you end up with the concerns @Maxperson brings up.

 

[payn]

I agree with your overall message here.

But, at the same time, I also think "modern" can, sometimes, mean better*. And there should be nothing wrong in admitting that. And I see a resistence in fans of old styles in acknowledging that too. So the argument cuts both ways.

*One example is when I see two games that aim at the same goals, and one is simpler, faster, more intuitive, etc. while retaining similar flavor. But fans of old games will discard it out of "it's all subjective" argument. Eg: I find The Black Hack a better implementation of old-school sensibilities than OG d&d because it has the qualities I point to above. But I keep seeing fans of OG d&d dying on the hill of "descending armor class is great!" or "a dozen different type resolutions and dice types for different systems is great!" or yet "nothing wrong with having to consult chainmail rules for combat situations!". Which I find the same case of people speaking out of personal preferences (instead of rationality), as the people who finds modern is always better that you point to above.

I find the hill diers numbers to be over-exaggerated. They do tend to be loud in social spaces I give you that. Though, you give away the game in posting about efficient takes on old school ways. Reading between the lines you can tell who is actually interested in old school play, and who is actually interested in nostalgia and tradition. For the record, neither is a wrong position, but folks often obfuscate their intentions whether willingly or unintentionally. The lines can be blurry to a traditionalist seeing someone interested in the idea of old school play and someone who doesnt like it at all.

For me its all about being a champion for what I like. Im looking to build community and be the best example of what I like. Think of it as less as being defensive of traditions and more about being on the offense of future opportunity. Which is why I spend more time owning and sharing my love then worrying about definitions being used wrong by people who dont like what I like. Stopping people from using the term modern isnt going to stop their perception and preference for their style of play.

 

[Parmandur]

You might have read that in reverse.

Given that @Neonchameleon liked my posts, I am confident I understood their point.

 

[Parmandur]

I don't think that is true. it is based on vibes emulation of those Appendix N books, because that is the inspirational litertaure for the creators and early adopters, but there are almost nogame design mechanics that emulate those things. The game mechanics are simple wargame mechanics distilled to single unit heroes.

This has been a core problem with D&D since its beginning: its mechanics do not match its intended narrative in any meaningful way. The most explicit examples are D&D fiction novels themselves: the narratives might name check some spells and things, but the actual mechanisms in the stories are very rarely representative of how the game plays. And for good reason.

The less said about litRPG the better.

I did not say Gygqx particularly succeeded, but hey, it was a first try., let's give the guy a break. Yes, he got the hit points mechanics from existing naval combat wargames...nit he chose the mechanics intentionally to simulate a certain sort of Sword & Sorcerery story.

 

[Fenris-77]

I think they are expensive. I consider complexity to be a cost (and extra subsystems to be a form of complexity) - and different people have different budgets. Are they worth it? It depends on what the game is trying to do, why they are there, and how well they are written. Are journey rules worth it in The One Ring? 100% because that's a big part of what the game is about and so it's worth spending the budget there. But I'm currently writing a game inspired by K-Pop Demonhunters; that thing absolutely does not want such rules. And games like AD&D with separate systems for everything look to me like someone's painted gold leaf all over everything.

So this isn't me disagreeing with you, just adding a different perspective.

Some games, and some groups of players, approach RPGs with the intention that the main goal of play to be the characters interacting with the setting, full stop. This is most usually seen in a subset of OSR play sometimes called world-in-motion and usually associated with a richly keyed hex map. So there's no GM intent involved, no 'kind' of story assumed, just a richly detailed setting and players set loose to trash that setting in whatever way seems like fun at the time. They might trade, they might explore, they might dungeon crawl, they might get involved in politics, they might do whatever. The 'point' of the game is for the players to play a character in the setting, again, full stop.

This isn't my personal preferred mode of play but I know a bunch of folks for whom it is. I bring it up because this playstyle is one that will often see reward in multiple systems for all kinds of possible activities.

 

[Fenris-77]

I did not say Gygqx particularly succeeded, but hey, it was a first try., let's give the guy a break. Yes, he got the hit points mechanics from existing naval combat wargames...nit he chose the mechanics intentionally to simulate a certain sort of Sword & Sorcerery story.

That's one way to look at it. Another is that he included it to simulate an element of a setting where people regularly got hit with big metal cutty things. That's not quite the same thing as emulating a story. The shared diegetic space in which RPG play unfolds is definitely the setting, not a story. A story also unfolds in a diegetic space but all that really tells us is that the idea of a fictional setting is shared by both RPG play and the novels that originally inspired them. I'm not sure that gets us directly to all the mechanics emulating the story (as opposed to the setting of that story).

 

[Thomas Shey]

And this leads to why this sort of conversation makes me want to tear my hair out. When I think of mechanics in tabletop RPGs that try to enforce genre my first three thoughts are:

• Hit points with basically no actual meaningful injuries or shock penalties
• Levels
• A heavily structured class system

And yet people on ENWorld, a D&D forum, claim to not want genre enforcing mechanics.

I'm not sure I consider the second, and possibly even the third a genre supporter. Levels are just a bookkeeping convenience (not one, mind you, I'm too fond of) and at least initially classes were a way of binning abilities (as its evolved this may have changed). Whether hit points are a gamist or genre support convention (or whether you can really separate the two out here) is different.