What is considered to be "modern" RPG design?

[Heaven's Thunder Hammer]

I've heard this phrase used over the years. At some point, I knew what it meant, now after several years of not buying the latest games... What is considered "modern rpg design?"

Perhaps this is hard to define and nebulous, however, I'm curious to see what other people have to say on this topic.

[Guts]

These days I'd say it's faster, simpler designs with solid emulation of genre or theme like Fate, PbtA, Cortex+, etc. The recent(ish) wave of OSR and the more simpler and loose D&D5 are also examples of this trend imo.

[JigokuBosatsu]

I doubt it's the true definition, but for me old-school design is very ad hoc by nature, people throwing rules at the game every time a special case comes up, and throwing numbers at the game any time there is a new rule. Modern design is when designers started making the system first then adding or excluding whole classes of rules to reflect the type of game being played.

That's probably pretty arbitrary and my opinion, but it feels good to me. (in a quick google before I hit submit, I see that some people have a similar opinion, with the words "design intention" being a phrase that might condense my whole paragraph above)

[Guts]

"Focused design" seems to fit what bot you and I say, JigokuBosatsu. Makes sense?

[JigokuBosatsu]

Certainly. At first I thought you were calling me a bot.

[Dogbert]

Considering now "old is new again", my answer to "what's modern design" would be: neckbeards.

True playtests? Math? Same-game tests? Notions of actual game design? Now THOSE are out of fashion, bringing those to the discussion is what gets you laughed out of the room these days.

[Username17]

Since the 2010s started, "modern design" has been very much harder to define. Simply put, a modern design is one which is made in reference to the currently successful RPGs on the market. That reference could be one of homage, subversion, or rejection, so long as it's clearly made with the successes and failures of the current hotness in mind.

In the 1980s, a "modern design" was anything that was designed in reference to AD&D. Maybe it was a simple D&D Heartbreaker like Palladium or a complete rejection of the class structure like GURPS, maybe it was a hybrid of Heartbreaker and Genre Mashup elements like Shadowrun. In any case, it was all modern design because everyone had read AD&D straight through and said "I can do better."

In the 1990s, a "modern design" was anything that was designed in reference to Vampire: the Masquerade. In the 2000s, a "modern design" was anything that was designed in reference to 3rd edition D&D.

And in the 2010s, there is ample room for disagreement about what constitutes a "modern design" because there is no heir apparent. There is no game which by the standards of AD&D, 3e D&D, or V:tM could be called successful. The current comparison point is whatever you want it to be because every game currently on the market is a disastrous failure by any previous standards you care to apply.

In 1997, you might make a game as a modern game that attempted to resolve perceived problems of Vampire the Masquerade. You might make a modern game that attempted to recapitalize on the success of Vampire the Masquerade in another genre. And those might be very different, but still recognized as modern. In 2017, there were no games that it would make any particular sense to template a new game on. You wouldn't bother rejecting or expanding upon 5th edition D&D because there's nothing there and also it hasn't done particularly well. If you made a game today you wouldn't make a V5 Heartbreaker because why fucking bother?

-Username17

[Guts]

Considering now "old is new again", my answer to "what's modern design" would be: neckbeards.

True playtests? Math? Same-game tests? Notions of actual game design? Now THOSE are out of fashion, bringing those to the discussion is what gets you laughed out of the room these days.

Seeing how OSR is a thing these days, I'd say you're correct.

On the lack of playtest though, the PbtA and Fate schools have a strong tradition of playtesting, so I wouldn't say it's out of fashion.

[Blade]

Since the end of the 2000s, I've seen "modern design" used to describe rules-light games compared to "old-school design" games that had these huge rulebooks full of more or less complex mechanisms.

I've also seen it used to describe games that ditched the classic GM-Players approach.

[Username17]

The other definition of "Modern" is specifically contrasted with the failures of major RPG design movements of the previous decade. So "Modern" in the 90s could be seen as things which answered the failures of Universalist systems or which rejected the AD&D model of adventure. Similarly, "Modern" in the 2000s could be seen as things that answered the failures of rules-ambivalent design or which rejected the "storyteller" felatio of the White Wolf experiment.

In that light, 3e D&D was modern in 2003 just as Vampire: the Masquerade was modern in 1993.

And again and still, basically nothing is modern today. If 4th edition had come together as an actual response and revision of 3rd Edition D&D, then it would have been Modern. But instead it failed and crashed and burned, and no one made the "proper answer" to 3rd edition that people were genuinely ready for in 2009. And no one made an answer to it since, and I think that's what the community is still waiting for.

-Username17

[Guts]

Since the end of the 2000s, I've seen "modern design" used to describe rules-light games compared to "old-school design" games that had these huge rulebooks full of more or less complex mechanisms.

Yep, this is certainly a modern trend. Streamlining, pick-up-and-play, etc.

Something important to distinguish, I think, is that which is available now from that which is being created now. We probably live in the best era ever for tabletop role-playing because all games from all eras are available again in some form or another. But that doesn't relate necessarily to the design trends of games created now.

[Heaven's Thunder Hammer]

I've just seen people, even you Frank, bandy the word "modern" around. (I'm thinking of your criticism of Ars Magica, that). This isn't a criticism of your critique, just that people use it, and it's sometimes clear or unclear what it means.

Relevant quote:

The bottom line however is that I don't know why I would even check out Magic Shoe. Ars Magica made some ground breaking innovations in the late 80s, and the name carries some weight. If people said they had modernized Ars Magica, I would be interested to say the least. It might be good or bad, but they'd definitely have my attention. Magic Shoe is just one heartbreaker among many. It would take a fair amount of positive word of mouth before I even looked it up. Without the Ars Magica name it's just another fantasy game.

link to thread:
https://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=55831

I feel that sometimes people mean "good" game design, instead of modern.

Good game design (by no means exhaustive and is my opinion) things like:

1. Does the math in the resolution system match what the outcomes should to be?

2. Does the core book have a complete game?

3. Has the core book been properly playtested and holes in the rules plugged properly?

4. Succinct writing in the core rule book - i.e. have they used 50 words where 15 is more appropriate? (Exalted 3E being a notorious offender.)

5. Core rule book layout: Are all the rules for one thing in one place? Is the core resolution mechanic in the beginning of the book, or do I have to dig around to find it?

6. Do the outcomes implied by the rules match the fluff in the setting?

7. If specifically, the rules are not simulationist, but "gamey" for a flavor reason, does the book mention this?

8. Are the rules intuitive and easy to understand?

9. Does the game have resolution submechanics for important actions in the game? (Notably D&D5E lacking an entry on how stealth works.)

10. Is the book built for a beginning RPG player to read, and thus, grow the hobby?

11. Is there sufficient GM advice in the section on how to run the game? Does it give advice for common pitfalls? Or advice on how to shift player attitude inherited from other RPGs?

12. If making a new edition, have the designers identified the actual issues with the game encountered by the player base and changed/improved/rewrote them?

[Iduno]

Relevant quote:

The bottom line however is that I don't know why I would even check out Magic Shoe. Ars Magica made some ground breaking innovations in the late 80s, and the name carries some weight. If people said they had modernized Ars Magica, I would be interested to say the least. It might be good or bad, but they'd definitely have my attention. Magic Shoe is just one heartbreaker among many. It would take a fair amount of positive word of mouth before I even looked it up. Without the Ars Magica name it's just another fantasy game.

You may or may not have a point, but that's not a relevant quote. "Modern Design" is not the same as "Modernized." Modernized means it went through retrofitting.

[Heaven's Thunder Hammer]

Relevant quote:

The bottom line however is that I don't know why I would even check out Magic Shoe. Ars Magica made some ground breaking innovations in the late 80s, and the name carries some weight. If people said they had modernized Ars Magica, I would be interested to say the least. It might be good or bad, but they'd definitely have my attention. Magic Shoe is just one heartbreaker among many. It would take a fair amount of positive word of mouth before I even looked it up. Without the Ars Magica name it's just another fantasy game.

You may or may not have a point, but that's not a relevant quote. "Modern Design" is not the same as "Modernized." Modernized means it went through retrofitting.

It begs the question though, "what is modern?"

[Username17]

Yeah, the money quote you're cutting out is this:

The system doesn't need to go into weird experimentalist storygame shit, it just needs to look like something that was designed in the 21st century - or at least the late 90s.

My suggestion was one of modernization, rather than to specifically make it actually be Modern. Not necessarily that Ars Magica needed to be cutting edge, but that it needed to have ever moved on from its late 80s roots and taken onboard any of the advances in game design that happened since the Bush Sr. administration.

-Username17

[Heaven's Thunder Hammer]

Yeah, the money quote you're cutting out is this:

The system doesn't need to go into weird experimentalist storygame shit, it just needs to look like something that was designed in the 21st century - or at least the late 90s.

My suggestion was one of modernization, rather than to specifically make it actually be Modern. Not necessarily that Ars Magica needed to be cutting edge, but that it needed to have ever moved on from its late 80s roots and taken onboard any of the advances in game design that happened since the Bush Sr. administration.

-Username17

(bold is mine)

I'm not trying to be dense, but what do you think those advances in game design are in a general context? That's what I'm trying to get at with my topic of "Modern". Clearly this was my unrealized bias on this topic of what it means to be "Modern" in my own head. My apologies for the run around.

And to be clear, while I've brought up Ars Magica, I've heard other, recent games be accused of not using "Modern" (perhaps when the speaker means advanced) game design.

[Orion]

3rd edition D&D is too old to actually be modern, but it's the last paradigm-shifting advancement, so it's pretty much the most modern thing out there. In most contexts, "modernizing" a game means "making it more like 3rd edition D&D." That could include such features as

--Reducing or eliminating the randomness in character creation and advancement.
--Assuming that players can and will read all the books instead of pretending that there are GM-only secret chapters.
--Unifying as much of the game engine as possible into a universal mechanic.
--Replacing cumbersome lookup tables with algorithms.
--Giving formal guidelines about appropriate challenges for characters of a given level.
--Removing most of the ways to permanently screw a character.

and so on.

[DrPraetor]

3rd edition D&D is too old to actually be modern, but it's the last paradigm-shifting advancement, so it's pretty much the most modern thing out there. In most contexts, "modernizing" a game means "making it more like 3rd edition D&D." That could include such features as

--Reducing or eliminating the randomness in character creation and advancement.
--Assuming that players can and will read all the books instead of pretending that there are GM-only secret chapters.
--Unifying as much of the game engine as possible into a universal mechanic.
--Replacing cumbersome lookup tables with algorithms.
--Giving formal guidelines about appropriate challenges for characters of a given level.
--Removing most of the ways to permanently screw a character.

and so on.

In these senses, Ars Magica 5th edition was certainly a modernized game.

[*] Random character generation was eliminated.
[*] None of the books (except a few adventures, I suppose) were expected to be a mystery to the players.
[*] There was a lot of mechanical unification. Maybe not enough, but all of the non-Hermetic traditions used unified rules for opening the gift, for how many supernatural skills they got, and so on. Various aptitudes and things all worked the same way. Now all of this stuff should've been done back in AM3, but it was nonetheless modernizing.
[*] Not on the list, but AM4 gave you points for things that were undesirable to your character, and charged you points for things considered desirable (such as True Love), which gave no game-mechanical benefit. AM5 unified all of these into story flaws so you got points for providing the GM with story hooks.

A "modern" game is probably still responding to 3rd edition D&D; or maybe to Pathfinder? If you do something with stealth and diplomacy rules that actually make sense, is that a "response" to D&D 5th edition, or is that still a response to D&D 3rd edition?

[angelfromanotherpin]

I've said this before, more than once, but I think it bears repeating. The most successful contemporary RPGs follow this pattern:
1) Promise to be all things to all people, using slick marketing to create as much hype as possible.
2) Produce something shitty, but vague enough that players can project their expectations onto it.
3) Rely on the sunk cost fallacy to turn hype into sales.

[Thaluikhain]

I'm not trying to be dense, but what do you think those advances in game design are in a general context? That's what I'm trying to get at with my topic of "Modern". Clearly this was my unrealized bias on this topic of what it means to be "Modern" in my own head. My apologies for the run around.

To extend that a bit, presumably you could pick any previous year and work out what was "modern" then, and how it differed from previous generations of games and to what would come later.

[Username17]

I'll admit that I straight up never read AM4. But...

Not on the list, but AM4 gave you points for things that were undesirable to your character, and charged you points for things considered desirable (such as True Love), which gave no game-mechanical benefit. AM5 unified all of these into story flaws so you got points for providing the GM with story hooks.

The AM5 book straight up acknowledges that not all flaws are bad and not all virtues are good and they provide or cost points anyway and you should decide how much min/maxing you want to do around that fact. They specifically aren't balanced and the limits on having them or being required to take them are in there and the basic book is incapable of making an argument for why this should happen.

-Username17

[DrPraetor]

The AM5 book straight up acknowledges that not all flaws are bad and not all virtues are good and they provide or cost points anyway and you should decide how much min/maxing you want to do around that fact. They specifically aren't balanced and the limits on having them or being required to take them are in there and the basic book is incapable of making an argument for why this should happen.

-Username17

You're misreading that acknkowledgement, which is specifically targeted towards issues with AM4.

Some flaws are good from the point of view of your character. For example, Compassionate is a desirable characteristic but it still gives you points.

From the point of view of the player, virtues provide game-mechanical benefits or shortcut story complications (or that is the design intent), while flaws provide game mechanical penalties or introduce story complications / hooks for the GM to utilize.

There are failures of implementation, and the actual list is not balanced. But, they did indeed modernize an issue with how virtues and flaws were handled in previous editions of the game.

[JigokuBosatsu]

For shitzengiggles, and because I have easy access, I decided to ask Ken St. Andre his take on this. I thought it might be interesting since he's about as OG as you can get outside of any surviving D&D chucklefucks.

Being played in the present. I'm not sure modern is a real distinction in RPGs. If the rules are in print, and people still play the game, is it not modern enough?

I also asked if creating T&T was an attempt to modernize D&D.

In 1975 RPG design was not a field. I had no idea what I was doing other than making a game that made sense to me and that I could play with the materials available to me at the time.

[Heaven's Thunder Hammer]

I'll admit that I straight up never read AM4. But...

Not on the list, but AM4 gave you points for things that were undesirable to your character, and charged you points for things considered desirable (such as True Love), which gave no game-mechanical benefit. AM5 unified all of these into story flaws so you got points for providing the GM with story hooks.

The AM5 book straight up acknowledges that not all flaws are bad and not all virtues are good and they provide or cost points anyway and you should decide how much min/maxing you want to do around that fact. They specifically aren't balanced and the limits on having them or being required to take them are in there and the basic book is incapable of making an argument for why this should happen.

-Username17

Frank and DrPraetor both have good points using Ars Magica as an example.

Purely comparing AM4 to AM5: AM5 is much, much better game. It took almost every issue in AM4 and improved upon it.

That said, it still suffers from the issue that not all Virtues are created equal, some are more situational than others. I'm trying to think of a virtue that is explicity bad for a PC...? Some do require taking a flaw, which is maybe what Frank is thinking of.

I think alot of "modernization" means to strip out things that don't make sense in previous editions (or games) and simplify things in a sensible (but usually debatable) manner. Creating balanced options, as Frank points, and if not, giving a coherent explanation as to why.

[OgreBattle]

Look to Video games and board games for modern game design that builds on preceding works aiming for similarly goals