Quote from: Caesar Slaad;538173Along 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 think JKim is a demigod of knowledge about all things gaming.

Quote from: RandallS;538096I 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.

It would be very unfortunate if this is indeed an integral part of designing "modern" rpg games.

Quote from: ggroy;538305It would be very unfortunate if this is indeed an integral part of designing "modern" rpg games.

Modern RPGs - "Solutions in search of problems."

It's one of the characteristics of "Modern RPG" thought, particularly of the major narrative movements, both the Edwards camp and the Laws camp, although really this can be subfiled under the Cult of the Designer/Cult of RAW aspects which are stronger defining characteristics.

Though I suppose that in games which have a significant proportion of abusive DMs and players, there's always the risk of an exodus of non-hardcore good players and DMs abandoning the game/hobby for good.  The bad apples driving out the good.

Quote from: CRKrueger;538307Cult of RAW aspects which are defining characteristics as well.

The earliest I ever came across the "cult of RAW", was back in the day when I played in some 1E AD&D games where the other players were high-functioning autistic types.  As far as they were concerned, any and all 1E AD&D rules published by TSR were "holy writ".  Houserules were forbidden, and all rules were done strictly by the book.

Quote from: ggroy;538310The earliest I ever came across the "cult of RAW", was back in the day when I played in some 1E AD&D games where the other players were high-functioning autistic types.  As far as they were concerned, any and all 1E AD&D rules published by TSR were "holy writ".  Houserules were forbidden, and all rules were done strictly by the book.

True, but back then they were high-functioning autistics, now they are the demographic.  

modern role-playing game: any game published after your preferred edition, and hence utter shit.

- Ambrose Bierce

Quote from: CRKrueger;538315True, but back then they were high-functioning autistics, now they are the demographic.  

Even weirder were games where such high-functioning autistics would write down the result of every dice roll, and check the calculations later to see if there were any arithmetic errors.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;538316modern role-playing game: any game published after your preferred edition, and hence utter shit.

Ding!

Thread winner!

IMO titles like MHR, that try to make use of the wheel w/o actually using it in the traditional manor: y'know, rolling it. While I applaud the effort, I don't share the taste. Traditional isn't "old" for me, if anything its proven IMO

Quote from: RandallS;538229I 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".

Individually, items aren't that new. Hell, character customization and rule standardization happened really early. I guess I'm sort of after the trend that treats all these things as related. Like it's interesting that D20 isn't the only thing that does it. FATE, Savage Worlds, Ore, and others do likewise.

QuoteI 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.

I never personally got why a lot of people want most of character creation done at level one and never touched again, but I respect the opinion. I guess I sort of understand in games where character growth doesn't define the campaign arc like it does with leveling in D&D. Like I understand in Traveller or supers games or (like you mention) CoC. But for me (for whatever reason) that leveling=getting some cool new trick thing is just cemented in there from when I learned to play.

On that note though, I'm really with you on making that process more intuitive. I say this a lot, but the idea that a monk with toughness isn't very good either at being a monk or being tough is weird. But I think that's more a problem with the elements (that feat and that class) than the framework they're set into (feats in general or classes in general).

QuoteIn 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.

It is as you say, there's more to feats than being binary have it / don't have it delineations. The selection process is there, and I think the notion of selection may have killed things like spell research, which I read about and find a really exciting part of the old game (like fortresses and followers and such... a real loss with the new stuff). When I write my own thing, I really want to include things like spell research, and rewarding players in the long term for things they went out and did in game.

QuoteMy 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.

My real point was that even effects intuitive to the things they model can get wonky at intersections if badly considered. I don't think 4e fucked up because things were effect based (M&M for example pulls it off better) I think it fucked up because it was generally badly considered. Also because things should both model a real thing and generate a carefully considered effect*. For myself, the game I'm tinkering with has at-will healing with the numbers based on the recipient instead of the caster. Limitations include potion availability, touch range, and a cap based on which spell is being used (so the fast, in-combat version of healing can only heal you to like a third of full; the long ritual does two thirds; and a night's rest heals fully).

*Want to go off on a tangent here and give an example. You see amateur game designers make a random hit location system and apply damage multipliers to body parts when that literally isn't any different than just fiddling with the damage curve to make it swingier. This is an example of the kind of thing effect-based thinking is good for. There's a little of it in old games (hit points) but the balance is just sort of shifting with the new.

In my game I've got a massive damage threshold and random wounds inflicted on massive damage. It's kind of backwards but instead of deciding what's hit and doing more, I assume that bigger damage hit something important. And while I've got limb shots on my table, bleeding, stunning, KO, etc. don't determine where you're hit because that information doesn't do anything. You roll death it doesn't matter much whether you got hit in the heart or the head. You're just dead.

QuoteMy 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.

This is where I don't get what you mean. Encounter is just a way to refer to a unit of play (and not a unit of in-game time, something that only 4e, 3's barbarian, Bo9S, and SW Saga do). Like a fight scene or a chase sequence or an argument or a troll asking you to solve a riddle or whatever. It's just a discrete or individual challenge. Yeah the good games set that into a context and/or blur the edges (you're trying to get through a complicated door puzzle when orcs attack and it would be better to get through and close it than try to stand against their numbers), but that doesn't make it not what it is.

A campaign isn't a measure of in-game time. Neither is an adventure. Encounter is just the next step down on the scale. It just became a dirty word thanks to the godawful that is AEDU.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;538316modern role-playing game: any game published after your preferred edition, and hence utter shit.

- Ambrose Bierce

Heh - priceless.

Quote from: beejazz;538459This is where I don't get what you mean. Encounter is just a way to refer to a unit of play (and not a unit of in-game time, something that only 4e, 3's barbarian, Bo9S, and SW Saga do).

So long as the rules do not refer to an encounter as some type of meaningful in game world unit/thing, I don't have a problem with it. However, the minute you have something like spells with a duration of "until the end of the  encounter" the game becomes basically something I'm no longer interested in playing. Sure, it makes some sense if an encounter is always PC vs "monster" combat as that is always going to take only a few minutes of time, but once you start having non-combat encounters you can easily get an epic fail in the feeling of reality department.

An example from a recent Wilderlands game session: Encounter A was a relatively major combat that took a few minutes of game time and about 15 minutes of play time. A detection spell cast at the beginning of that encounter with an "until the end of the encounter" duration would have only lasted a few minutes. Encounter B was a marathon negotiation with a high level cleric about who was going to be appointed head of the church in the area. This encounter lasted about 20 minutes of play time but over 8 days of game time. That detection spell with an "until the end of the encounter" duration that lasted a few minutes in Encounter A would have lasted 8 days in Encounter B. That is totally and completely unacceptable in any game I am expected to run or play in.

Games designed around acts and scenes are completely unworkable for me. I run a sandbox games. I don't have an adventure preplanned that can be divided up into scenes and acts. Such divisions just don't make any sense in my games.

If the rules just deal in "real" units of measure for things like time and distance they can be used regardless of how the GM structures his or her game. BTW, I have no problem with an optional rule for spells cast in combat that has them lasting until the end of the encounter if the GM and players want to avoid record-keeping but it must be optional so the spells still make sense duration wise if cast out of combat.

Quote from: RandallS;538482So long as the rules do not refer to an encounter as some type of meaningful in game world unit/thing, I don't have a problem with it. However, the minute you have something like spells with a duration of "until the end of the  encounter" the game becomes basically something I'm no longer interested in playing. Sure, it makes some sense if an encounter is always PC vs "monster" combat as that is always going to take only a few minutes of time, but once you start having non-combat encounters you can easily get an epic fail in the feeling of reality department.

See, I agree with you on this, but the direct use of "encounter" as a unit of measure isn't really what I'm talking about when I say encounter focus.

Let's bring it back to examples: My game will use rituals. These include contingency/permanency rune versions of casters' spells and auras. So you've got something you can only (usefully) do before a fight. It's a way to reward preparation in the short term, as opposed to the long term vancian approach that older games use. It's as innocent as that at the heart of it: shorter term mechanical focus.

Another example: Almost all powers in my game would be at will. A few abilities in my game would be prepared in advance, but the only limitations are that it takes a while to prepare, and you can only hold one spell like this at a time. Technically that makes it a little like an encounter power. It's not there as resource management though. It's mostly there to prevent spamming death, suggestions, charms, and the like. And even there, it's more to prevent these spells ruining social encounters. You have to pick and choose when you're going to use them. You don't want to dominate someone if there are even a few witnesses, because you might make them hostile.

Now, I like both long and short term stuff, so alchemy plays into it too: You can only make so many potions between outings, and it depends on how much cash (or how many components) you have. And both found components and found potions take a bit of control out of the hands of players. So there's still something close to Vance, and even your random spells (design wise) here. This is closer to the adventure scale focus of older games.

QuoteAn example from a recent Wilderlands game session: Encounter A was a relatively major combat that took a few minutes of game time and about 15 minutes of play time. A detection spell cast at the beginning of that encounter with an "until the end of the encounter" duration would have only lasted a few minutes. Encounter B was a marathon negotiation with a high level cleric about who was going to be appointed head of the church in the area. This encounter lasted about 20 minutes of play time but over 8 days of game time. That detection spell with an "until the end of the encounter" duration that lasted a few minutes in Encounter A would have lasted 8 days in Encounter B. That is totally and completely unacceptable in any game I am expected to run or play in.

With you there man. It's a terrible duration for an in-game effect of any kind.

QuoteGames designed around acts and scenes are completely unworkable for me. I run a sandbox games. I don't have an adventure preplanned that can be divided up into scenes and acts. Such divisions just don't make any sense in my games.

Assuming the rituals I described above had concrete casting times and such, would you use them?

QuoteIf the rules just deal in "real" units of measure for things like time and distance they can be used regardless of how the GM structures his or her game. BTW, I have no problem with an optional rule for spells cast in combat that has them lasting until the end of the encounter if the GM and players want to avoid record-keeping but it must be optional so the spells still make sense duration wise if cast out of combat.

I typically don't like tracking duration spells, but deal with it differently. In the system I'm writing, effectively everything is concentration. You can only keep one duration spell going at any given time (maybe more at higher levels). Also probably going to use spell interruption, 'cause that's cool. Wizard mesmerized your barbarian? Punch him in the face!

Bah.   If I was going for a "Devil's Dictionary" definition, I would actually go for the more subtle:

Modern Gaming: Any RPG released after the year you personally started roleplaying.

RPGPundit