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

 

[Aldarc]

I guess in the end, system doesn't matter really if you reskin stuff and/or use the engine underneath while overlaying the carcass of the setting you prefer.

Reading through your post again, I'm a bit puzzled though why you say this while also describing a bunch of hypotheticals in which clearly the system mattered as part of a conscientious choice to use particular games (and associated playstyles) but simply changing the color of lipstick on the pig.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

System matters to me, no question. I’m always running into situations where I can model the PC in my head better in one system than another. Usually, HERO is my go-to, but certain characters run “better“ in different systems.

I’ve also run into situations where even basic mechanics & assumptions will sour a player on a system. The classic example of that in my experiences as a GM was illustrated in a Mutants & Masterminds campaign.

Unlike the original D20 systems, iterative attacks in M&M do not get individual attack rolls. A single roll determine the result- the more successful attacks, the effects simply get ratcheted up.

2 players in addition to myself had to interact with this, and none of us liked it. The feel was off.

 

[Morrus]

So I'm choosing between guaranteed fun at little effort, which won't be perfect but nothing is. Versus learning a whole new ruleset and probably buying a published adventure or two depending on how easy the system is to get the hang of, for no guaranteed payoff at all, since maybe I just won't like the game.

There's always some payoff. You're gaming with your friends!

 

[pemerton]

Ultimately in the end, it probably depends ultimately on what you want. You could have Dungeons and Dragons as an overlayer on top of your Fantasy AGE/Dragon Age games. You could play pen and paper Warcraft but use the DND 4E system underneath.

I've run more Rolemaster than AD&D in The World of Greyhawk. I've also used WoG for Burning Wheel. But what makes that possible is that RM shares many design features with AD&D (eg its basic idea of what FRPGing tropes look like), as does BW. Both fit the high fantasy tropes scattered among S&S defaults that are at the heart of WoG.

But it wouldn't make any sense to talk about playing WoG with Prince Valiant, and I don't think it would really make sense to try and play it with Cortex+ Heroic either (though maybe someone has done this or seen it done, and will show how I'm wrong!).

 

[Weiley31]

Reading through your post again, I'm a bit puzzled though why you say this while also describing a bunch of hypotheticals in which clearly the system mattered as part of a conscientious choice to use particular games (and associated playstyles) but simply changing the color of lipstick on the pig.

Hey now that pig loves his lipstick!

 

[Campbell]

The technical bits that most of us think about when we think of system/game design matter, but not a whole lot. At the end of the day Warhammer Fantasy, Numenera, Pathfinder and D&D are mostly the same game. They are about a group of fantasy adventurers going on adventures played by players who are mostly trying to solve the adventure of the day. The process of play is damn near identical. Differences in design are mostly technical. Those technical differences do matter, but not like a lot in the grand scheme of things.

However take something like Sorcerer with its kickers, players who are expected to play individual characters pursuing personal goals, and GMs who are expected to frame scenes and build NPCs that interact with that core PC personal drama. Suddenly that looks a lot different. The process of play has been dramatically upended.

That's what System Matters is all about. It's about getting away from just designing those technical bits and really devoting time to designing the process of play.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

I feel that the most vivid encapsulation of "system matters" is how some groups take to the PbtA design philosophy like a fish to water, while others end up ramming their heads against the wall no matter how hard they try to grok the system. Despite Vincent Baker by his own admission writing Apocalypse World largely as a response to and criticism of Forge ideology, despite "system matters" being regarded as a tautology by current designers, and in spite of how antiquated the specifics of GNS may be in the 2020s, the phrase "system matters" will still hold truth in its broadest sense as long as there are groups who sit down to a game of Apocalypse World or Masks, try to run it like they would D&D, and utterly fail.

 

[Haffrung]

There was some time in the past in which you didn't know, say, D&D. When presented with D&D, you engaged in the time to learn it, and probably didn't consider the time you took to learn it compared to the time it takes to engage in other amusements you had. Why not? How is it that time spent was okay, but new time spent isn't?

How is it that learning the game is considered a cost, rather than an amusement itself? Can you approach learning in a way that keeps it from being a cost?

Because most people dislike readings rules and learning new systems.

Those of us who do - who buy multiple RPGs a year, post about them on forums, and dissect and analyze their mechanics - we are weirdos. Even by the standards of people who play tabletop games we're weirdos.

Out of the dozens of people I've played RPGs and boardames with, I'd estimate almost half have never read a rulebook, and most of the rest have only done so with reluctance. To them, learning a system is a necessary chore, not something to be enjoyed for its own sake. And even those who have happily engaged in learning new games in the past can become disenchanted with the cult of new and the unrelenting churn of new systems.

 

[Umbran]

Because most people dislike readings rules and learning new systems.

So... why are you learning a system like you're studying for an algebra test?

I ask again - can you approach it in a way in which it isn't a cost?

 

[Haffrung]

So... why are you learning a system like you're studying for an algebra test?

I ask again - can you approach it in a way in which it isn't a cost?

I can. Because I like learning about rules and systems. Most people don't. Just like most people don't like changing the oil in their cars, even though some weirdos do.

I'm not sure why you regard this like some kind of problem that needs to be fixed. If it's a problem at all in the RPG hobby, it's because a fraction of hobbyists are much, much more active and engaged than the average participant is, and this disparity is found in almost every group. This fosters frustration and resentment among the hyper-engaged, especially when they gather on forums and lose sight of how oddball they are.