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

[Aldarc]

Again I'd rather not use that as a game design description; contemporary classical music started in 1945.

Okay. But contemporary refers to what is current and happening now. The fact that contemporary classical music started in 1945 doesn't mean that contemporary TTRPGs started in 1945.

 

[Parmandur]

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).

But the way hitting things with metal cutty things work in OD&D and AD&D are not "realistic", they are simulating a particular kind of story.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Isn't it though?

If I want to get to the same result, theme and intentionality-wise, making a simpler, faster and intuitive calculation is better than a complex, arcane and time-consuming one, no?

Advocating for the later here sounds to me like personal bias, not rational analysis.

The "if" at the start of your second sentence is doing some heavy lifting. Sometimes engaging with the mechanics in certain ways is part of the point; sometimes some consistent detail in output is desireable. Neither of those is particularly well served by simplifying.

In other words, you statement only follows if you're pursuing the same goals as you are, and not everyone is.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Levels in the abstract are a bookkeeping convenience. Levels as used in D&D where your average person is either level 0 or level 1 and where there is absurd growth in things including toughness. And likewise the D&D class system is a lot more of a straightjacket than a class system needs to be. The Daggerheart one for example is much more porous with significant choices on level up.

I should note that levels often didn't elevate in toughness all that visibly fast at the start however. Its easy to see what they initially did as baking in an otherwise-missing defensive skill (albeit in a clumsy way since it was interacting with the hit point model). As to the straightjacket of classes, one, that's often at least somewhat less true with many modern class systems, and again, at the start there just wasn't that much to work with; its not like other than splitting into the two spellcasting classes, there was much more to work with; the game had no skills and almost no class features at the start (other than the clearly bolted-on clerical turning). And that set the trend for quite some while.

Essentially, I think you're conflating intention with excessive simplicity.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, I can't agree with that. Like at all.

I can't fathom someone approaching a new game, whatever it's type (TTRPG, videogame, boardgame, sports, etc) and favoring unecessary crunch / complexity for complexity's / slowness for slowness' / unintuitivenss for unintuitiveness' -sake. The only reason I see someone accepting that is familiarity for mechanisms one already knows and is favorable toward.

And here, you're doing the heavy lifting with "unnecessary". You'd find a lot of it unnecessary because you don't find engaging with it part of the point, nor factoring in things a simpler system would elide desirable.

Essentially, you're projecting your wants on the rest of the hobby.

 

[Fenris-77]

But the way hitting things with metal cutty things work in OD&D and AD&D are not "realistic", they are simulating a particular kind of story.

I don't think that's an obvious claim at all. I might buy this in some ways in terms of characters, but it doesn't obviously apply to foes, which in S&S books mostly die in a single swing. The amount of squinting required to make this idea work suggests to me that it's at best peripherally useful in terms of describing the function of the mechanic. This goes double when you haven't even mentioned wargames, which are at least as likely, of not more likely, to be the primary inspiration for dealing damage. IDK, I just don't find this explanation all that convincing.

 

[Umbran]

Oh you could easily reskin mechanics for sword thrust to instead be witty insults, and swap hit points for reputation, and have practically the same mechanics running underneath.

You can reskin the entire game, sure.

The result will not bear any resemblance to what happens in Pride and Prejudice, however.

Making something that matches a genre is more than just having words from that genre in the rules. You cannot change "hit points" to "emotional resistance" and have the D&D engine play out in a way in which you feel like your character is in Pride and Prejudice.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You can reskin the entire game, sure.

The result will not bear any resemblance to what happens in Pride and Prejudice, however.

Making something that matches a genre is more than just having words from that genre in the rules. You cannot change "hit points" to "emotional resistance" and have the D&D engine play out in a way in which you feel like your character is in Pride and Prejudice.

All true. That's what subsystems with their own mechanics are for, IMO

 

[Neonchameleon]

I should note that levels often didn't elevate in toughness all that visibly fast at the start however.

If you rolled low, sure. But if you rolled high the opposite was true. And proportionally the rate was faster because you didn't maximise your first hit die.

As to the straightjacket of classes, one, that's often at least somewhat less true with many modern class systems,

I would point out here that if two 5e characters from many classes are mechanically identical at level 3 and don't multiclass there is only a single point of mechanical difference at level 11 (the level 8 feat). It might be somewhat less true with many modern class systems - but D&D 5e is pretty constrained. And in reality thanks to the Attunement rules the gear will not provide these differences.

Essentially, I think you're conflating intention with excessive simplicity.

No. I'm looking at results because intent isn't magic. I'm not calling the decisions wrong (especially not in 1974) but what I am saying is that modern D&D has deliberately and intentionally stuck to some of those choices and they have become part of the genre that is D&D.

 

[Thomas Shey]

If you rolled low, sure. But if you rolled high the opposite was true. And proportionally the rate was faster because you didn't maximise your first hit die.

Yeah, but you're still talking about a lot of characters who at second level could die by one sword swing. In fact, once you were dealing with non-FM, probably most of them. There wasn't no difference, but you really had to get to about fourth level before it was really visible to a lot of the non-primary-combatant classes.

I would point out here that if two 5e characters from many classes are mechanically identical at level 3 and don't multiclass there is only a single point of mechanical difference at level 11 (the level 8 feat). It might be somewhat less true with many modern class systems - but D&D 5e is pretty constrained. And in reality thanks to the Attunement rules the gear will not provide these differences.

Yeah, but as you say, D&D isn't every game. PF2e, 13th Age and Shadow of the Demon Lord/Weird Wizard characters can diverge pretty fast depending on which specific class and how they want to go.

A lot of that is because people didn't view that early lockstep as a virtue.

No. I'm looking at results because intent isn't magic. I'm not calling the decisions wrong (especially not in 1974) but what I am saying is that modern D&D has deliberately and intentionally stuck to some of those choices and they have become part of the genre that is D&D.

I'm jsut far less sure about the "deliberately and intentionally" part of that. To me it seems like a fair bit of that is simply inertia.