Not stuck in the past, for the past's sake.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;538133Not stuck in the past, for the past's sake.

Dude. 0/10. Like we haven't seen that troll before.

Before I start, I've got to say I agree with you on some level that you're perfectly cool to assume you won't like these things in new contexts having tried them elsewhere. I'm not one of those guys who thinks you have to play to judge.

But I'm sure you can see the value of value-neutral definitions as a way to talk about these things in mixed company (where some people actually like these traits). And some people like or dislike only bits and pieces. So narrowing it down can be useful as well.

The rest of this is just quibbles and comments.

Quote from: RandallSThe latter is actually what I usually do. I'm willing to try new rules and new ways of doing things. However, I'm not willing to change what I expect out of rules: to help me run (or play in) the campaign I want to play in, in one or more of the styles of play I enjoy. Rules that get in the way of my doing this are going to be rules I do not like no matter if they were invented in 1975 or invented yesterday.

With you on that. Totally cool with using my take on modernism to explain my interest in games like BRP, WFRP 1 and 2, or even Traveller. They may be old, but they express a few of these traits earlier (and IMO better) than many modern games.

QuoteI never liked point-based or other detailed forms of character design as it is too fiddly and time-consuming (and favors players who study it over those who just play). I've tried it a number of times since I first saw in it the late 1970s and have never warmed up to it.

Is it that you don't want to fiddle with your character at all, or is it that systems tend to be too complicated? For myself, I hate point buy in all its forms despite liking customization, so for me things like feats and the binary skills of 4e are cool. You know... broad strokes customization that's a bit more than picking a class but a lot less than buying shit up in M&M.

In this case, I'd count D&D spells as the first featlikes. Just by the way. That kind of binary rather than graded tracking of abilities has its place even in some of the most old school games.

QuoteI can't stand rules whose effects cannot be described from the point-of-view a character in the game world. We now call this "disassociated mechanics". This annoyed me back when it was AD&D PCs who could not buy magic items but everyone else in the game world could (the only way this could work is if characters in the game world could tell PCs from non-PCs) and my dislike of it is still there today when "modern rules" do it.

TBH, this is one of my more major breaks with modern gaming in general, but I'm more the "no compromises" type. That is to say that the effect and the thing being modeled are both important to me. Hence my complaint about healing becoming more difficult with level in older editions, which to me is just as bad as poisoned minion wonkiness.

QuoteI do not like tactical combat with minis and terrain/battlemats/grids in my RPGs. I have tried it a number of times since 1975 and always found it wasted too much game time and put far to much focus on combat for me.  I'm not going to magically like it any better because it is now considered modern design and/or a better way to do things.

Remember I'm not saying modern design is good. Just that it's modern. Also, the focus on the encounter doesn't necessarily mean a focus on the combat encounter. This side of things is half-assed in its real incarnations so far (IMO) because only one kind of encounter has gotten any attention, but there is room to design better chase scenes, social interactions, and the like. Older D&D had combat as encounters using a much simpler structure that worked fantastically, and treated puzzle and trap encounters with more respect as well. 4e tried with skill challenges to make a cure-all for that sort of thing and it failed miserably.

5e is unlikely to continue this line of thought. I hope hope hope 4e clones stake out this newish design space.

QuoteI have NEVER found "balanced game rules" to be important mainly because unless you play in a clone of the designer's campaign in the exact same play style the rules probably are not going to be balanced any more. In other words, while it is important that there be fairness/parity/"balance" at the game table, this balance is really something that can only be set up for a specific campaign in a specific style of play (and in some cases only after accounting for the specific players at the table) -- that is, it is something only the GM of a particularly campaign can do effectively. Focusing the rules on "balance" does not do this.

Now here's the fun bit: Pre-3 was more balanced than 3 because it defined the context of the adventure on some level. Adventures were put in dungeons, and the rules worked pretty beautifully therein. The relative focus on balance (in design) hasn't shifted as much as people think. It's just that where the balance rests has shifted. In pre-3, Vance worked because monsters wandered (among other things). In 3 up, it didn't work as well both because there was less guidance on running dungeons and because the easily extensible core mechanics made it easy to try adventure types that those rules weren't made for.

QuoteI have never cared for games with lots of minutia that has to be looked up in play -- I prefer rules that give general guidelines to the GM and let him/her wing it with modifiers and such. Every time I am jerked out of the game to look up or deal with rules issues, I lose enjoyment. I want rules to fade into the background as much as possible for players, not be front-and-center and the focus of play.

It is very possible to have rules light modern games (say, Fate variants) or rules heavy old school games (not my thing so it's harder to think of examples... Palladium? I don't know).

That's why I left that out.

QuoteI choose to play with good players and good GMs. I have never had any use for rules that try to actively prevent bad play and abusive GMs as said rules always interfere with good players and good GMs at some point -- and don't actually prevent bad play or abusive GMs.

This stuff is tangential at best to the reasons for most of the changes modern games embraced.

QuoteSo yes, if modern game design is all about doing a bunch of stuff I have tried in the past and determined I do not like in games, the chances are slim that I want to go suddenly love it just because it is in a new game.

More power to ya. I'm not really asking you to like it, just trying to pin down what it is.

Quote from: Panjumanju;538099Regardless, "Modern" is a tremendous misnomer.

In terms of most cultural constructs we were not only well past the modern movement before roleplaying games were invented, but well past the post-modern period of the arts to which roleplaying games are constituted.

What the OP is referring to are people mistakenly using the word "modern" because they think it means "contemporary" or "new". What is actually being referred to is a new wave of roleplaying game development, and not in any way a modernist movement or having anything to do with the modern project.

The discussion is actually about what constitutes the new direction of gaming, and if it has taken distinct enough shape at this point to categorise it as something independent enough from what has come before in the cultural construct to give it a new banner under which to operate.

3rd wave RPGs?
Post D-20 RPGs?
Post Wizards RPGs?
Hasbro Era RPGs?

You could make a case more or less for any of these, but not just the roleplaying games mentioned - but all roleplaying games, except perhaps for H. G. Well's "Little Wars", are certainly not "modern".

//Panjumanju

Thanks for helping me clarify. Of your list of alternatives, I sort of prefer the term 3rd wave. I have a rough idea of games that would be lumped into the 2nd wave (Shadowrun, Vampire, maybe Heavy Gear) but not enough knowledge to come up with a good list of traits. 2nd wave might be even more fun to pin down because the wave has mostly passed and there is a larger body of work than wave 3.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;538125You forgot about ORE.

Sorry, I'm not terribly familiar with ORE. How does it compare to the other games on the list, besides being (presumably) recent?

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;538133Not stuck in the past, for the past's sake.

Dude, stop being terrible for a second. You're a bit more qualified to get into specifics than a lot of the people on this board, being an actual fan of this kind of game. If there's a place where you should make yourself useful, this is it.

Quote from: beejazz;538142Thanks for helping me clarify. Of your list of alternatives, I sort of prefer the term 3rd wave. I have a rough idea of games that would be lumped into the 2nd wave (Shadowrun, Vampire, maybe Heavy Gear) but not enough knowledge to come up with a good list of traits. 2nd wave might be even more fun to pin down because the wave has mostly passed and there is a larger body of work than wave 3.

I'd go more 4th wave, with a distinction between the complicated fiddly systems like Champions, GURPS and Rolemaster and things like Vampire.

Quote from: beejazz;538145Dude, stop being terrible for a second. You're a bit more qualified to get into specifics than a lot of the people on this board, being an actual fan of this kind of game. If there's a place where you should make yourself useful, this is it.

Yes and no, as my passion for 4E has resulted in me playing other systems far less than I have in the past, and my taste in RPGs(mostly D&D and World of Darkness) is fairly narrow compared to most on this forum. Since 4E's launch, I haven't really sat and played anything else aside from a few short term games of SWSE and nWoD.

If I was to add something to this discussion, it would be clarity. One feature I consider modern in RPGs is clarity. Rules that are clear, self-explanatory and easy to apply.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;538146I'd go more 4th wave, with a distinction between the complicated fiddly systems like Champions, GURPS and Rolemaster and things like Vampire.

I'm a little fuzzy on the history, but I see the crunch-heavy generics (GURPS and its ilk) and the setting-rich games (SR, Vampire) happening kind of simultaneously.

Kind of like how storygaming is happening simultaneously with (sure why not) third wave. They might both be happening, and they might be playing off of each other, but one didn't spring from the other really so I wouldn't put them in the chronology.

Historically, you can see 3e as a reaction against some of the excesses of the crunch heavy generics (it's easier to build characters) and the very specific settings (opting for a higher degree of genericism). It wasn't so much fixing older D&D as it was bringing some cool stuff out of older D&D into a more contemporary style of game.

Likewise, I think the OSR isn't as classical as some think it is. A lot of it is defined in reaction to the third wave, emphasizing those strengths that 3 and up lack in order to distinguish itself.

Quote from: beejazz;538157I'm a little fuzzy on the history, but I see the crunch-heavy generics (GURPS and its ilk) and the setting-rich games (SR, Vampire) happening kind of simultaneously.

They don't really feel right lumped together.

Quote from: beejazz;538012So it's come up now and again (mostly in response to TCO ranting about how he wants the new D&D to be modern) that there isn't a good definition of modern D&D or modern game design.

Awhile back I wrote a brief History of RPG Mechanical Design.

The short version: I think one can identify some pretty clear movement in RPG mechanical design for the first 20 years of the hobby. But once you get past the rules light movement in the late '80s and early '90s, there is no clear movement: The entire design space for RPGs essentially "opened up" and games have been all over the map ever since.

After that point you have things like the splatbook game lines of the '90s, the OGL, and the ebook revolution. But these are more marketing trends than they are game design trends.

Mechanically, you do have the rise of storytelling games starting around 2000. But I'd argue that those are actually a completely different type of game, although one could perhaps point to the inclusion of some STG mechanics in hybridized RPGs as a semi-modern trend.

Realistically, I'd describe RPG design for the past 15-20 years as being in a postmodern stage.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;538133Not stuck in the past, for the past's sake.

So, open to learn from the past, for objective quality's sake, instead?  Cool, glad to know you agree that the OSR games are a solidly modern gaming phenomenon.

Quote from: beejazz;538142Thanks for helping me clarify. Of your list of alternatives, I sort of prefer the term 3rd wave. I have a rough idea of games that would be lumped into the 2nd wave (Shadowrun, Vampire, maybe Heavy Gear) but not enough knowledge to come up with a good list of traits. 2nd wave might be even more fun to pin down because the wave has mostly passed and there is a larger body of work than wave 3.

Along these lines, John Kim's article on Fashion in RPGs are a pretty nice basic (if not exhaustive) examination of trends in RPGs.

http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/fashions.html

But it's a bit dated now, and things like FATE and 4e are influences on many sectors now.

I find "modern" as a category too broad to be really useful - less so than the "old school" label.
 
John Kim has a "brief history of fashion in RPG design page" that might be of interest, although it was written about 2004.
http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/fashions.html
 
That breaks up RPGs into:
1975-1980: Explorational Wargames D&D, Melee, et al.
1978-1988: Literary Simplicity Call of Cthulhu, Pendragon, et al.
1980-1988: Rules-Heavy Worlds RoleMaster, HârnMaster, et al.
1984-1993: Comical Rules-Lite Toon, Marvel Superheroes, et al.
1986-Present: Universal Problem-Solving GURPS and its imitators.
1987-Present: Fast Cinematic Action Star Wars, Feng Shui, et al.
1991-Present: Dark Storytelling Vampire: The Masquerade, et al.
1991-Present: Diceless Fantasy Amber Diceless, Everway, et al.
2000-Present: Crunchy Challenge D&D3 / D20, Rune, et al.
 
Since then I'd guess maybe you can add a sort of "Metagame Challenge" category - D&D4, Warhammer 3, Marvel Heroic...plus a "Storygame" category perhaps.
 
EDIT: Dammit! Scooped!

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;538174I find "modern" as a category too broad to be really useful - less so than the "old school" label.
 
John Kim has a "brief history of fashion in RPG design page" that might be of interest, although it was written about 2004.
http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/fashions.html
 
That breaks up RPGs into:
1975-1980: Explorational Wargames D&D, Melee, et al.
1978-1988: Literary Simplicity Call of Cthulhu, Pendragon, et al.
1980-1988: Rules-Heavy Worlds RoleMaster, HârnMaster, et al.
1984-1993: Comical Rules-Lite Toon, Marvel Superheroes, et al.
1986-Present: Universal Problem-Solving GURPS and its imitators.
1987-Present: Fast Cinematic Action Star Wars, Feng Shui, et al.
1991-Present: Dark Storytelling Vampire: The Masquerade, et al.
1991-Present: Diceless Fantasy Amber Diceless, Everway, et al.
2000-Present: Crunchy Challenge D&D3 / D20, Rune, et al.
 
Since then I'd guess maybe you can add a sort of "Metagame Challenge" category - D&D4, Warhammer 3, Marvel Heroic...plus a "Storygame" category perhaps.
 
EDIT: Dammit! Scooped!

Needs to address "PokeChallenge" for the recent focus on collectible cards/tokens/widgets/etc. (see WHFRPv3, powarz cards, new Gamma World, etc.)  Gotta catch'em all!

Quote from: beejazz;538138But I'm sure you can see the value of value-neutral definitions as a way to talk about these things in mixed company (where some people actually like these traits). And some people like or dislike only bits and pieces. So narrowing it down can be useful as well.

I guess my real point is that most of the things listed in the original post as "modern game design" don't seem that new/modern to me. The majority of them were things I tried (in house rules and/or in other published games) and either liked or did not like many years ago -- often in the first 10-12 years of the RPG hobby. I just don't see the things listed as a useful definition of "modern games".

QuoteThe rest of this is just quibbles and comments.

No problem, I've selected a couple for elaboration on my part.

QuoteIs it that you don't want to fiddle with your character at all, or is it that systems tend to be too complicated?

I don't want character creation (or leveling up) to take a long time or require a lot of rules knowledge to do well.

My take on character creation in level-based games is best shown in my own M74 Extended. Pick a class. Pick a 2-3 word background the GM can agree with.

Example: (class) fighter (background) City-State Guardsmen. This character has all the abilities common to the fighter class and has excellent success chances on doing things directly related to his class or background, a okay chance of things indirectly but clearly related to his class or background, and a low chance of doing unrelated but doable things.  Every couple of levels starting at level 2, the character might get talent (if those optional rules are in use) -- something specific he is "really good at" which is good for a +2 on related success rolls.  Yes, "background" requires a couple of minutes of discussion with the GM to be sure it a) fits the campaign and b) that both the GM and I are on the same page about what the background covers, but it requires very little time and doesn't require reading pages full of skills, etc. to select what fits the character from the list.

For skill-based games, CoC is a good example of what I like. Roll the character, pick a background that gives you a set of skills, pick an extra skill or two from the short skill list. Fast and simple.

QuoteIn this case, I'd count D&D spells as the first featlikes. Just by the way. That kind of binary rather than graded tracking of abilities has its place even in some of the most old school games.

In my games, players start with a random selection of GM selected starter spells in their spell book and only get new spells by finding them in the game (or researching them) so they aren't much like feats -- no need to read and analyze them all before you can pick.

QuoteHence my complaint about healing becoming more difficult with level in older editions, which to me is just as bad as poisoned minion wonkiness.

My house rules handed the TSR D&D healing problems. You can see M74 versions of those in M74 Extended. Most of the annoying wonky rules that just did not match up well with game reality were as easy to fix -- at least for me.

QuoteRemember I'm not saying modern design is good. Just that it's modern. Also, the focus on the encounter doesn't necessarily mean a focus on the combat encounter.

My games just don't divide up into "encounters" any more than they do "acts and scenes" -- neither fit my style of play so any system that defines durations and such in terms of such constructs instead of units of game time is unlikely to work for my campaigns/play style.