Jon Peterson: Does System Matter?

D&D historian Jon Peterson asks the question on his blog as he does a deep dive into how early tabletop RPG enthusiasts wrestled with the same thing.

Based around the concept that 'D&D can do anything, so why learn a new system?', the conversation examines whether the system itself affects the playstyle of those playing it. Some systems are custom-designed to create a certain atmosphere (see Dread's suspenseful Jenga-tower narrative game), and Call of Cthulhu certainly discourages the D&D style of play, despite a d20 version in early 2000s.

Does System Matter?

Dungeons & Dragons started out as a game with such an adaptable and open-ended set of rules that early adopters questioned whether any fur...

playingattheworld.blogspot.com

 

[prabe]

I don't think anyone on either side would argue differently.

There have seemed to be people arguing that system trumps all. I might be misunderstanding them, or they might be staking out a more extreme position than they actually hold (which is a thing that happens in arguments, especially on the Internet).

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I feel like this is kind of circling the much broader question: "If no one can agree on what matters, does that mean nothing actually matters?"

TwoSix: Are these the Nazis, Snarf?

Snarf: No, TwoSix, these men are nihilists. There's nothing to be afraid of.


...things (objective, real things) matter. Maybe not to a nihilist, even one who enjoys the occasional lingonberry pancake, but they do make a difference.

People make decisions based around these differences. Let's take two different examples:

1. Coke and Sprite. There is an objective difference between these two things. Whether you discuss measurables (such as nutritional information, or caffeine) or taste, they are objectively different. But the preference will be different. Even if you make a statement based on an objective difference ("You should drink Sprite because it is a citrus-y beverage, and therefore more refreshing"; "You should drink Coca Cola in the morning because the caffeine will get you going!").

2. New MacBooks and PC Laptops. The new macbooks have a newly-designed chip that blows the doors off of the intel chips in terms of performance and heat. That is an objective measure. That makes a difference. However, people can (and do) still have a difference in preference based on everything from "The PC/Windows laptop runs games I want to play," to "I just don't want to run MacOS, and I never will." For the second, imagine the person is a computer user that only runs basic web browsing and word processing from their laptop, so you could probably even go so far as to state that the new macbook would be better for their uses ... and it still might not matter to them.

It's an intersection of subjective and objective that seems to get many people confused. People describe a game system and say that it is better for X use case (which is a difficult thing to do, but let's assume it is correct). They may even give specific examples of how their play group uses that system and how well it works for them. The trouble is when they generalize that use case to other cases- in other words, for other people. Other people not only have different preferences, but they also have different groups (and those groups contain other people with different preferences).

The elevation of the system over the people at the table is what I often find baffling. I don't think it is too much to say that "players matter" or "preferences matter." But that's also a truism, isn't it? It all matters.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Have you every tried to plot multiple axis? I can manage 4 if I have enough sheets of paper. Mathematicians could figure more I’m sure but that’s beyond me.

Which is why I use three important ones. It lets me prioritise multiple important things without all the flaws you outline of narrowing it down to one axis.

You pick the game to suit the group... because every group is different and will get on with different elements differently.

Yes. Which is why I need more than a simple single-axis scale for the game.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'm on record that the people around the table matter at least as much as the printed/published rules.

Ugh not me. The people at my table stink! Who cares about them?

Again, I'm obviously kidding.....but let's take your comment and then apply it to the discussion here.

"Participants don't matter."

I don't know if anyone here would actually argue in support of that statement. Any game will obviously be shaped by the people who play in it. Which is why I'm kind of surprised that anyone would argue in support of the system not mattering.

 

[TheSword]

The groups preferences mattering (which seemed to take a lot of effort to acknowledge) is why when a person suggests X game is much better for Y theme, the listener doesn’t automatically agree. It isn’t just due to their starter system conditioning them.

To be fair I only got back into this thread when that point was disputed.

 

[Ovinomancer]

There have seemed to be people arguing that system trumps all. I might be misunderstanding them, or they might be staking out a more extreme position than they actually hold (which is a thing that happens in arguments, especially on the Internet).

I... don't know who that would be. I haven't seen anything said that resembles this.

 

[TwoSix]

It's an intersection of subjective and objective that seems to get many people confused. People describe a game system and say that it is better for X use case (which is a difficult thing to do, but let's assume it is correct). They may even give specific examples of how their play group uses that system and how well it works for them. The trouble is when they generalize that use case to other cases- in other words, for other people. Other people not only have different preferences, but they also have different groups (and those groups contain other people with different preferences).

Yea, but I think the disconnect I'm seeing is that I feel there's nothing wrong with making recommendations to people based on your own experiences.

Like, if I tell someone I really enjoyed the food at this seafood restaurant over the weekend, and they should give it a shot if they're in the city sometime. If they tell me, "Yea, I really don't like seafood", than that should end the conversation and everyone should be happy. I'm not wrong for thinking the restaurant is great and recommending it to people, and they're not wrong for not liking seafood and thus not wanting to follow my recommendation.

I haven't seen anyway in this thread saying something like "Seafood restaurants are objectively the best restaurant, and you should only eat there." Likewise, I haven't seen anyone say "Don't ever recommend seafood, because some people are allergic." Which is good, because those would both be objectively bad statements to make!

The only thing I've really seen on this thread is people saying "If you really like seafood, you should try this new restaurant rather than ordering another Filet O' Fish from McDonalds." The fact that some people might still like their Filet O' Fish doesn't mean you can't say "I think the food at that new restaurant is objectively better than a Filet O' Fish."

 

[prabe]

I... don't know who that would be. I haven't seen anything said that resembles this.

Then feel free to take that as an admission I've misunderstood someone (or possibly several someones).

 

[heretic888]

If I had to make a cogent argument for the "System doesn't matter" perspective, it would be this.

"The heart of RPGing is based on negotiation between the players as to the fictional state of the characters and their environment. All any system does is codify expectations to remove the need to negotiate certain states in the story. As such, any game can be used for any narrative by simply removing rules that codify those expectations and moving back to negotiation between participants."

That's still System Matters, though. You've just replaced a published system with an unpublished one. GM Decides or The Group Decides are absolutely systems (or at least components of a system).

 

[TwoSix]

I... don't know who that would be. I haven't seen anything said that resembles this.

Personally, based on the fact that most of the participants in this thread have been posting here for a long time, I have no trouble saying I think none of those posters believe system trumps all.