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

 

[TheSword]

Much like @Morrus, I answered your question as "both" rather than "either/or" and classes, races, etc. are also arguably designed in 5e with combat as sport in mind.

For the record I think system does matter. Just nowhere near as much as adventure design/story and group.

It has an influence, I just don’t believe it makes as much difference as the designers of those systems would like to believe (to return to the original article)

I also think in a game... all combat is sport in one way or another... though I know that’s not the specific point the article was referencing, it’s worth bearing in mind. The fact that OSR enjoy Extreme Difficulty doesn’t stop being sport.

 

[Aldarc]

For the record I think system does matter. Just nowhere near as much as adventure design/story and group.

It has an influence, I just don’t believe it makes as much difference as the designers of those systems would like to believe (to return to the original article)

Then why don't you play Dungeon World again?

I also think in a game... all combat is sport in one way or another... though I know that’s not the specific point the article was referencing, it’s worth bearing in mind. The fact that OSR enjoy Extreme Difficulty doesn’t stop being sport.

I think you are trying to (unsuccessfully) equivocate the principles, though I'm not sure if this comes from misunderstanding them or what.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Nobody said people cannot learn new approaches. That’s a straw man. The essay suggests that often they do not, not that they cannot. Of course they can.

I think that saying "straw man" is a way to end a conversation, not have one.

So I will be brief- I was not making an absolutist point, as I thought was obvious. Most people would reasonably assume that you can get introduced to various games, sports, or other things via one "system" or "rule set," and while you might get used to that, it would be bizarre to say that you are conditioned to that particular set of rules such that you have trouble switching.

I think that using that pejorative language when it comes to TTRPGs evinces a failure of imagination; in that people saw TTRPGs as "too different" at that time, and the D&D was too dominant, but I don't think that this is correct.

But sure, STRAWMAN. Thank you.

 

[TheSword]

Then why don't you play Dungeon World again?

Because we generally play games that are made by the people who are telling stories that we like. I find Dungeon World utterly unimpressive in that regard. As would my group.

Pathfinder 1e, D&D, WFRP have all released great stories. I don’t think it’s coincidence that we’ve played adventures written by each of them in each of the other systems (with the exception of PF adventures in WFRP rules - just because it’s newer). The system wasn’t as important as the stories we were telling.

I only stopped playing PF 1e when our group felt the system was getting in the way of the groups enjoyment and a good story. Though it took a long time for that to happen. 5e was well into its 3rd year when we switched. Rules are sticky and as has been discussed elsewhere often the effort of learning a new system just doesn’t feel worth it.

The similarities between PF and 5e are substantial but we can agree I’m sure that WFRP and 5e/PF is a substantially different system and yet adventures translate just fine when the group is right.

 

[dragoner]

Of course system matters, in the sense that nothing really matters, not here, playing games. This question is sort of "the rocket house has no brakes" as it collides with other questions and maxims.

• 5e was built for ease of use, an engineering principle too, and then they capitalized on it.
• People are lazy, and will play what they know.
• More rolls are just more chances for failure (had someone get hostile in a Traveller group when I mentioned this).
• A publisher mentioned they removed actively offensive material in a supplement, because one of the writers objected; then again, why was it in there in the first place?

So much of this stuff slides easily into a fail state; DnD has inertia that can keep it going over rough spots, smaller games, it is far too easy to find a substitution. Many times if not enough people showed up for our pub game, one player usually had a board game they were hot to try out.

 

[Aldarc]

Because we generally play games that are made by the people who are telling stories that we like. I find Dungeon World utterly unimpressive in that regard. As would my group.

Does that have anything to do with the fact that Dungeon World hasn't released adventure paths since that would be antithetical (if not counterproductive) to how the system works? The "great stories" of Dungeon World are pushed by the complications that are triggered from the dice and the fiction rather than from pre-scripted adventures.

Pathfinder 1e, D&D, WFRP have all released great stories. I don’t think it’s coincidence that we’ve played adventures written by each of them in each of the other systems (with the exception of PF adventures in WFRP rules - just because it’s newer). The system wasn’t as important as the stories we were telling.

...

The similarities between PF and 5e are substantial but we can agree I’m sure that WFRP and 5e/PF is a substantially different system and yet adventures translate just fine when the group is right.

You're right. It's not a coincidence. (I also have my doubts that the group has much to do with it.) A big part of that has to do with common culture of GM responsibilities/power, "GM as author," and that whole pre-written adventures/stories thing that exists between these systems.

 

[Morrus]

I only stopped playing PF 1e when our group felt the system was getting in the way of the groups enjoyment and a good story.

So you're saying system mattered so much that you actually changed games because of it?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Of course system matters, in the sense that nothing really matters, not here, playing games. This question is sort of "the rocket house has no brakes" as it collides with other questions and maxims.

• 5e was built for ease of use, an engineering principle too, and then they capitalized on it.
• People are lazy, and will play what they know.
• More rolls are just more chances for failure (had someone get hostile in a Traveller group when I mentioned this).
• A publisher mentioned they removed actively offensive material in a supplement, because one of the writers objected; then again, why was it in there in the first place?

So much of this stuff slides easily into a fail state; DnD has inertia that can keep it going over rough spots, smaller games, it is far too easy to find a substitution. Many times if not enough people showed up for our pub game, one player usually had a board game they were hot to try out.

It becomes more of an issue of path dependency than sort of "system matters."

The reason people play certain sports in certain parts of the world isn't "system matters" and you are conditioned to certain sports; it's because other people play it, learn it, teach it, and there are networks in place. This is true not just within (and between) geographic areas, but within and between socioeconomic groups.

It's easier to simply note that certain features of a game or a rule system tend to develop and become entrenched over time due to path dependency, and that, over time, it becomes more difficult to switch out without completely.

To go to the last point you made; it could be said that D&D (or even editions of D&D, for example) is a certain sui generis style of TTRPG that benefits from being the default. In much the same way that if you get a sufficiently large group of people together, you are unlikely to go to the place that you really want to go eat, but are likely to go to a place that everyone can agree on. Perhaps a place that has a sufficiently diverse menu of options that everyone is familiar with. It might not be anyone's top choice, but everyone will find something tolerable.

Call it the Cheesecake Factory theory of TTRPGs.

 

[TheSword]

Does that have anything to do with the fact that Dungeon World hasn't released adventure paths since that would be antithetical (if not counterproductive) to how the system works? The "great stories" of Dungeon World are pushed by the complications that are triggered from the dice and the fiction rather than from pre-scripted adventures.


You're right. It's not a coincidence. (I also have my doubts that the group has much to do with it.) A big part of that has to do with common culture of GM responsibilities/power, "GM as author," and that whole pre-written adventures/stories thing that exists between these systems.

So you're saying system mattered so much that you actually changed games because of it?

It did matter eventually. We stuck with PF because like many people it fitted what we played before (3e) and because we liked Paizo’s style and story telling.

Though as I said, I didn’t say system doesn’t matter, I said it’s less important than other factors. The Adventure Paths/stories and the Group mattered more.

Then the quality of Paizo’s APs tailed off and weight of bumph became greater than we liked. There was nothing inherently wrong with the system. Just the weight of product had made the game unwieldy. I’ll let other people debate whether that is a system issue or a business model issue.

 

[TheSword]

You're right. It's not a coincidence. (I also have my doubts that the group has much to do with it.) A big part of that has to do with common culture of GM responsibilities/power, "GM as author," and that whole pre-written adventures/stories thing that exists between these systems.

You mean between most systems, not just those systems.