Some reasons why people may reject the notion that "System/Rules matter"

[overgeeked]

Some people do in word and deed asset that system does not matter, or matter much to them.

If other people find this to be an almost inexplicable denial of an obvious and inescapable truth, they might consider if their understanding of the breath of purposes within the hobby is incomplete in some way.

Incomplete, perhaps, a similar way to how the late 90s academic proponents of ludology had an impoverished model of "what a game is" when they stridely asserted that games aren't narratives.

So you’re arguing that you could use D&D 5E, Ghostbusters, Paranoia XP, Over the Edge 3E, and Call of Cthulhu 7E to all achieve an identical play experience?

 

[Umbran]

As an aside, I think most designers focus on the rules because that's the easier way to make more books and more money.

There are two reasons for a designer to focus on rules:

1) Because that is what sells.

2) Because that's what they are good at! The skillsets of rules system design are not the same as the skillset for worldbuilding, for example. Have you recently expected high-rise architects to instead focus on interior decorating? So, why are you expecting rules-designers to focus on not designing rules?

 

[Mark Sabalauskas]

So you’re arguing that you could use D&D 5E, Ghostbusters, Paranoia XP, Over the Edge 3E, and Call of Cthulhu 7E to all achieve an identical play experience?

I'm saying people are deeply and genuinely involved with the hobby while being profoundly indifferent to the fact that you can't use wildly different systems to achieve an identical play experience.

That people using DnD to play the "wrong thing" for "which it is not designed" may not simply be more numerous that than those of us who care about rules design, but their indifference suggests, at least, the possibility that rules ought to be a minor, not major, part of a useful poetics or cultural understanding of tabletop RPGs. That just as dark matter is likely 85% of that matter in the universe, even though we don't yet understand it, that "system" might only "matter" 15%.

That rules may be properly understood as marginal, not central. And that caring deeply about rules isn't wrong, but it is simply a matter of taste, and what you happen to value in RPGs.

More hopefully, it suggest the possibility of indie game creators in the years ahead having the chance to have a bigger impact on the on the hobby than, say, voice actors, if we broaden our focus.

 

[Umbran]

That people using DnD to play the "wrong thing" for "which it is not designed" may not simply be more numerous that than those of us who care about rules design, but their indifference suggests, at least, the possibility that rules ought to be a minor, not major, part of a useful poetics or cultural understanding of tabletop RPGs.

I don't know what "useful poetics" are in this context.

Cultural understanding of RPGs... isn't my concern. I'm... kind of like an automotive mechanic - I work on cars, so I care about how cars are designed, and will have opinions on and will discuss automotive design and its practical impacts on driving and keeping cars running smoothly ad nauseum. I care about my own understanding of design, and to a lesser extent the understanding of my fellow mechanics, not the broader culture's understanding.

 

[Campbell]

I'm saying people are deeply and genuinely involved with the hobby while being profoundly indifferent to the fact that you can't use wildly different systems to achieve an identical play experience.

I would suggest that if the play experience is identical then so is the actual process of play. I get that the vast majority don't think about rules that much. In the middle of playing game neither do I, but those rules still have an impact. In my experience people are not getting similar experiences from wildly different games. They are getting incredibly similar experiences from incredibly similar games. The vast majority of mainstream games and the vast majority of games that people play follows an incredibly similar set of play procedures, divisions of narrative authority, and set of play priorities.

I'm not saying you are anyone else has to care about what happens at the margins of the hobby, but the play experience is remarkably different in games like Burning Wheel, Apocalypse World, Dogs in the Vineyard, and Monsterhearts. You cannot easily get the same experience in a remarkably different game. I have never seen someone try to do so without exposure to these games either.

I'm not saying you cannot drift or alter the experience. When I run mainstream games I bring in techniques from indie designs all the time, but I am bringing that energy in and making changes to the process of play. The result is often a unique alchemy. Our Vampire game takes in elements of different versions of Vampire, Blades in the Dark, Apocalypse World, Exalted Third Edition, Nordic LARPs and Passiones de Passiones. The specific set of techniques and the play process we use deliver a bespoke experience that is very different from any Vampire game I have played before.

 

[overgeeked]

I'm saying people are deeply and genuinely involved with the hobby while being profoundly indifferent to the fact that you can't use wildly different systems to achieve an identical play experience.

Ah. So it's semantic confusion, then.

There's: 1. "system doesn't matter" as in every system will produce identical results. Which is rubbish on its face.

Then there's 2. "system doesn't matter to me" as in I just want to play and don't care what system it is as long as it's fun.

When most people have these arguments they're stuck on arguing about the first one. The second one is basically, "I have different preferences than you." To which the only reasonable response is: cool, have fun.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Ah. So it's semantic confusion, then.

There's: 1. "system doesn't matter" as in every system will produce identical results. Which is rubbish on its face.

Then there's 2. "system doesn't matter to me" as in I just want to play and don't care what system it is as long as it's fun.

When most people have these arguments they're stuck on arguing about the first one. The second one is basically, "I have different preferences than you." To which the only reasonable response is: cool, have fun.

I don't think that's accurate; it is just as accurate to say that it is semantic confusion on the part of proponents of "system matters."

I think that the OP listed various reasons why the "debate" is tendentious, but I boiled it down in my terms in my first response to the fact that it goes to two issues. If someone is saying "system matters" (or the rules matter) in the banal sense, then it isn't even worth discussing.

But the reason there is usually an argument is that there are many people that will bootstrap that first sense of the term into a second- systems matter, and some systems matter more than other systems, and Ima tell you why this system matters more ....

Which, you know, is not exactly, "Cool, have fun."

 

[happyhermit]

...
If other people find this to be an almost inexplicable denial of an obvious and inescapable truth, they might consider if their understanding of the breath of purposes within the hobby is incomplete in some way.

Incomplete, perhaps, a similar way to how the late 90s academic proponents of ludology had an impoverished model of "what a game is" when they stridely asserted that games aren't narratives.

Just want to say I think it's pretty commendable the way you seem to be trying to understand other people's possible reasons for having certain views. Usually when people try to do that it's to try to figure out how they can convince them they are wrong. Disappointing to see the usual; (That doesn't prove anything!, Then they just don't understand! etc.)

 

[Mark Sabalauskas]

. I'm... kind of like an automotive mechanic - I work on cars, so I care about how cars are designed

And that's really cool. You can do really neat things with that sort of expertise. It is an interesting part of the hobby.

Part.

I've been saying that the players who aren't interested in the impact that rules can have are not saying anything unimaginable, inconceivable or untrue when they say they feel that system doesn't matter. That rules can be sun around which everything revolves for (some) people, and merely a twinkling star in the corner of someone else's sky.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Just want to say I think it's pretty commendable the way you seem to be trying to understand other people's possible reasons for having certain views. Usually when people try to do that it's to try to figure out how they can convince them they are wrong. Disappointing to see the usual; (That doesn't prove anything!, Then they just don't understand! etc.)

I really like this part from the linked blog post from @Mark Sabalauskas -
That being said, I believe the trend in the RPG creation community is imbalanced in valuing game mechanics over narrative design. Story, adventure, setting, and art direction are more than equal partners in creating meaning. Luckily, we can all make the games we want, and it is easier than ever to make them available to people.

I cannot speak for everyone, but when I think of my favorite games ... I don't reminisce over the rules. I don't think about the system.

Instead, the system is often incidental; it might have somewhat helped (or hindered) the game. But the meaning that I remember is tinged with so many other aspect ("equal partners"). The story, the adventure, the setting, and the art direction, as pointed out.

The totality of the experience is so much more than the rules. Few people would reminisce about Gygaxian 1e by saying that the RAW were the best and most conducive system; but many remember how the fantastical line-art drawing, the purplish Gygaxian verbiage, the sketches of mysterious adventures as presented in the modules, the settings, and, of course, even the byzantine bespoke rules combined to make something that was more than the sum of its parts. For that matter, a similar case could be made for the more elegant rules in Moldvay/Cook- both sets of rules, both sets of adventures, both settings promising something different.

The elevation of system to the detriment of the other important aspects in creating meaning is something that I think is too often overlooked; and I appreciate the thoughtfulness that went into this.