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]

The thing is that D&D started life as a hacked tabletop wargame with the GM there to enable you to step outside the wargame rules. Pathfinder is a direct D&D offshoot. And WFRP is a hacked tabletop wargame even if it uses a different wargame and a slightly grittier aesthetic. The design goals of all three are very similar - and the methodologies are similar enough that in one notorious review Ryan Dancey claimed that WFRP 2e had clearly been taking notes from D&D 3.X with examples that had all been in WFRP 1e almost two decades earlier.

Those are three very similar systems with similar design assumptions you have there. I'm not surprised adventures for one work in the others.

Excerpts...

The Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay game is a clever derivative of D&D 3rd Edition with an innovative character advancement system, ...

Chris is credited with Design & Writing for the Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay game, and his influence on the system will extend to all the other products in the line, which makes the decisions made in creating the basic rulebook the template for all of the Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay products. His background experience at Wizards of the Coast and as a D20 publisher is therefore exceptionally relevant to the following observations. Chris understands many of the research efforts that were performed prior to writing D&D 3e, and he understands the mechanical trade-offs, player information load, and rules complexity issues that shaped the D&D 3e design. He has clearly applied much of that knowledge to WFRP.

WFRP is a close cousin to D&D 3rd Edition. The two games share many common aspects, and a lot of common design philosophy. Many terms are interchangeable between the two games, and many game systems are extremely similar to each other. The use of the "roll under / percentile" system in WFRP tends to mask some of these similarities - the presentation of character & monster abilities are very different, which leads to a greater sense of mechanical difference than actually exists. In fact, in most cases, WFRP could be converted to a simple D20 System game by just setting all DCs to 20, and converting percentile scores to bonuses (divide the bonus by 5 and round up). This is further facilitated by the fact that most percentile values in the game are evenly divisible by 5, and external effects are presented in increments evenly divided by 5 as well, allowing fast, on-the-fly conversions without a lot of prep work.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I think these points are highly relevant to the idea that system matters.

I will assert, unequivocally, that Cthulhu Dark is a better RPG system both in general, and for the special case of Mythos RPGing, than CoC. Yet as you note the latter is far more widely played.

I will also assert, but a bit more hesitantly as I know I'm disagreeing with Greg Stafford, that Prince Valiant is a better system both in general, and for the special case of Arthurian/knightly romance RPGing, than Pendragon. (And to the extent that someone wants to use the Winter Phase stuff from Pendragon that can easily be folded back into Prince Valiant. We've used those charts to determine whether the knights in our Prince Valiant game have children following their marriages.)

Part of the virtue of both systems is that they're shorter and mechanically more straightforward. They also more reliably produce experiences, in play, that emulate the source material.

So why are they not more widely played?

In another thread, I stated that the main issue that many people (such as myself) have with the statement "system matters" is as follows:

"System matters" inevitably means that because it matters, some systems are better than others, and let me tell you why these systems are better ....

This, to me, is why the statement "system matters" is incredibly problematic.

Above, we see it in the way that I find worrying.

1. The statement that system matters.
2. The assertion that some system is "better" than other systems.
3. The confusion as to why the "better" system isn't played more.

For point of reference, the Cthulhu Dark "lite" system can be found here. (Link goes to .pdf). This is the four page .pdf (one page is a graphic title, one page is clarifications, so two pages of "rules") that people are discussing. Now, before going through this, I should note that in fairness, Graham Walmsley didn't stop there, but instead produced an excellent 200 page book about it, which expands the rules (occupations, insight die) and provides a lot of information for the Director (the GM) to run games.

But looking just at the "lite" rules, most people would immediately see what the issues are with that particular rule system. It presuppose a massive number of things; a person would have to know already know all about the Lovecraft/Cthulhu mythos, would have to be well-versed in TTRPGs, and would have to fill in the details around many of the instructions - presumably with a background in other CoC TTRPGs! For example, how can one possibly understand a clarification like " even if you rolled a 6 while searching your greatuncle’s personal effects, you would not find the coordinates of Ry’leh, where Cthulhu sleeps" without a thorough background in Lovecraft already? And, again, this is a rule clarification.

Most importantly, the rules presuppose not just a knowledge of Lovecraft and TTRPGs in general, but presupposes a comfort level with this exact style of fiction/narrative-oriented RPGing. This is neither a good nor a bad thing, but it is a thing. For example, unlike the "expanded rules" in the official Cthulhu Dark, there is only one mention that you "Choose a name and occupation" and a later mention that you can roll a die if something is within your occupational expertise, and that's it. What does that mean? How is that different than something that is within human capabilities, that has the exact same die role and chance of success? Why is it that all characters are exactly the same? For certain groups that enjoy a kind of style, that can be liberating and freeing! For others, it might be confusing or annoying (as is the idea that all combats will kill you, no matter what, no roll allowed).

Fundamentally, that is the issue. No serious person would ever argue that rules don't matter, in the sense that they don't impact gameplay. Cthulhu Dark will play differently than D&D 3e with a battlemap and minis. For that matter, small changes in the rules can incentivize or change behavior at the table; this is all true and should be trivial.

But the assertion that some systems are better (or worse) tends to breed resentment at best. People have very different preferences when it comes to gaming, and it is entirely possible that the success (or failure) of certain games is proof that in practice, people are voting with their dollars. In other words, people might not have the same preference for games, so it is best to continue to hope that people make a diversity of games (and systems), and that people continue to support that diversity.

 

[Aldarc]

I don't think it's necessarily a matter that some systems are better than others, which I think is too hard of an assertion and one that isn't generally actually argued, but, rather, that some pre-existing systems would potentially be better suited than others for the purposes of a play group hoping to cultivate the desired play experience.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I don't think it's necessarily a matter that some systems are better than others, which I think is too hard of an assertion and one that isn't generally actually argued, but, rather, that some pre-existing systems would potentially be better suited than others for the purposes of a play group hoping to cultivate the desired play experience.

It's not that I disagree with that (I don't); it's more that I find that to be a statement that is difficult to be useful.

To explain- I think that there are a lot of ways people can look at "a play group" as you are using it. Earlier in this thread I think I referred to the Cheesecake Factory theory of TTRPGs. I think that is often true with groups; many groups will have divergent preferences when it comes to the "desired play experience" and as such, the game that is best-suited for the group's desired play experience might be a poor match for the desired play experience of some (or most) of the individuals within that group. The best outcome for the group is not necessarily the best outcome for some individuals within it.

That said, there are groups that, for whatever reason (they are in a rut, they are used to certain styles, they haven't tried other games, etc.) could migrate to a TTRPG that they would enjoy more.

I think the issue, as I see it, is that people often don't fully credit the concept that there exist groups of people (often large groups!) that enjoy play experiences that they don't enjoy. That confusion often ends up in the mistaken belief that other groups are not playing these potentially superior systems, when, in fact, these other groups are playing systems that work perfectly for their own play experience.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I don't think it's necessarily a matter that some systems are better than others, which I think is too hard of an assertion and one that isn't generally actually argued, but, rather, that some pre-existing systems would potentially be better suited than others for the purposes of a play group hoping to cultivate the desired play experience.

I think that it's pretty obvious that some systems are worse than others. I mean FATAL and RaHoWa are just bad, both mechanically and morally. You might not be able to say that apples are better than oranges (or vise-versa) but you can certainly say that fresh apples are better for eating than rotten ones. And I don't think that it's particularly controversial to say that a fresh orange is better for eating than a rotten apple.

 

[chaochou]

In another thread, I stated that the main issue that many people (such as myself) have with the statement "system matters" is as follows:

"System matters" inevitably means that because it matters, some systems are better than others, and let me tell you why these systems are better ....

In another thread I stated that the main issue that many people (such as myself) have with the statement 'system matters' is as follows:

System matters inevitably means that because it matters some systems are better than others, and let me tell you why these systems are better...

You've started from a false premise, and that's why you reach poor conclusions.

'System matters' is no more problematic as a statement than 'metal matters'.

That doesn't mean that some metals 'are better' than others - because the only way such a statement can possibly have meaning is if one asks 'better at what?' But you fail to ask that question.

Does it matter if I use lead instead of copper to wire my house, or pig iron on a circuit board, or aluminium to shield an x-ray machine?

According to you, it doesn't, because that would suggest inherent failings in specific metals which would be a grave insult to them. This analysis is a farce, but it's the one you pursue.

The real analysis is to say 'What does Burning Wheel do better than Traveller?' or 'What does Dungeon World do better than D&D?'

Sadly, honest analysis of such questions from people with experience of said systems runs into problems on these boards because:

i) many posters are incapable of accepting that D&D doesn't do absolutely everything perfectly - even things for which it has no rules compared to games which have detailed and excellent rules for such things. So the claim that Star Fleet Battles does space combat better than D&D gets rejected out of hand. The idea that Burning Wheel does player agency better than D&D gets rejected out of hand. People start from the assumption that they can't be true and go from there. This is exacerbated by...

ii) many times posters involved in such conversations have zero experience of at least one, and often many, of the systems being discussed, and yet post as if they have such experience. Then when it's revealed, they claim they don't need any experience to know better about a game than those who have played it. Such things don't seem to be against forum rules, while challenging it runs risks.

Frankly, if you can't post actual play to back up your points about a named and specific system, I don't think any 'analysis' is worth a damn.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

You've started from a false premise, and that's why you reach poor conclusions.

'System matters' is no more problematic as a statement than 'metal matters'.

That doesn't mean that some metals 'are better' than others - because the only way such a statement can possible have meaning is if one asks 'better at what?' But you fail to ask that question.

Does it matter if I use lead instead of copper to wire my house, or pig iron on a circuit board, or aluminium to shield an x-ray machine?

According to you, it doesn't, because that would suggest inherent failings in specific metals which would be a grave insult to them. This analysis is a farce, but it's the one you pursue.

The real analysis is to say 'What does Burning Wheel do better than Traveller?' or 'What does Dungeon World do better than D&D?'

Sadly, honest analysis of such questions from people with experience of said systems runs into problems on these boards because:

i) many posters are incapable of accepting that D&D doesn't do absolutely everything perfectly - even things for which it has no rules compared to games which have detailed and excellent rules for such things. So the claim that Star Fleet Battles does space combat better than D&D gets rejected out of hand. The idea that Burning Wheel does player agency better than D&D gets rejected out of hand. People start from the assumption that they can't be true and go from there. This is exacerbated by...

ii) many times posters involved in such conversations have zero experience of at least one, and often many, of the systems being discussed, and yet post as if they have such experience. Then when it's revealed, they claim they don't need any experience to know better about a game than those who have played it. Such things don't seem to be against forum rules, while challenging it runs risks.

Frankly, if you can't post actual play to back up your points about a named and specific system, I don't think any 'analysis' is worth a damn.

This is exactly what I was discussing.

I agree that a conversation with you is not "worth a damn," as you colorfully put it. This is everything I find so distasteful about trying to have a decent conversation about the subject, so I'll leave you to to it.

 

[Manbearcat]

I don't think it's necessarily a matter that some systems are better than others, which I think is too hard of an assertion and one that isn't generally actually argued, but, rather, that some pre-existing systems would potentially be better suited than others for the purposes of a play group hoping to cultivate the desired play experience.

On the desired play experience (agenda).

I would also add to the above (particularly with respect to the bolded) that the analysis is intended to forensically suss out (rather than abstract or abridge) what constitutes desired play experience x vs desired play experience y vs desired play experience z (and so on)? One of the problems with lack of analysis is that it seems to just assume that there is really only one...maybe a few...desired play experiences. In reality, there are many, many desired play experiences.

Once you understand (at a forensic level) what constitutes and differentiates desired play experiences, then you can holistically, and with focus/intent, design toward each of those play experiences (GMing principles, authority distribution, process of content - setting/situation - generation, PC build mechanics, resolution mechanics, incentive structures, metacurrencies/economies - if any, feedback loops, nature/axis of advancement, Win/Loss Con - if any, etc).

"Designing blind" (not understanding, at a forensic level, what constitutes and differentiates desired play experiences) is almost always a pretty fraught endeavor. One might respond "I'm not designing blind, I'm designing based on intuition." To that I would say, (i) you either have a much greater grip on the desired play experience than you're able to articulate (which is absolutely a thing) or (ii) you've got some cognitive or experiential blind spots (possibly both) that you're not aware of and you're either smuggling them in and then extrapolating from them or ignoring them and papering over the issues that arise from that. (ii) is absolutely "designing blind" while (i) is basically being possessed of the ability to do all the stuff in my first two paragraphs (even if you can't articulate it or "show your work").

 

[Ovinomancer]

This is exactly what I was discussing.

I agree that a conversation with you is not "worth a damn," as you colorfully put it. This is everything I find so distasteful about trying to have a decent conversation about the subject, so I'll leave you to to it.

Well, I'm not sure how decent a conversation you were trying to have when you started by saying that anyone suggesting a system might be better at achieving a play goal is instead suggesting that that system is absolutely better and then trying to force others into accepting it. Strawmen are not good starts to decent conversations, unless your intent is specifically to prevent conversation you disagree with.

 

[pemerton]

In another thread, I stated that the main issue that many people (such as myself) have with the statement "system matters" is as follows:

"System matters" inevitably means that because it matters, some systems are better than others, and let me tell you why these systems are better ....

Better in this context obviously is relative to some goal. I've spelled some of that out in my post and implied more.

But the assertion that some systems are better (or worse) tends to breed resentment at best.

Surely only among fanatics and the immature.

I read post after post in these General RPG threads that either assumes or asserts that D&D is better than other systems at X, where X ranges over a very wide range of possible goals for RPG play. I often disagree. I don't feel resentment. What is it to me that others prefer a different system from the ones I do?

It presuppose a massive number of things; a person would have to know already know all about the Lovecraft/Cthulhu mythos, would have to be well-versed in TTRPGs, and would have to fill in the details around many of the instructions - presumably with a background in other CoC TTRPGs! For example, how can one possibly understand a clarification like " even if you rolled a 6 while searching your greatuncle’s personal effects, you would not find the coordinates of Ry’leh, where Cthulhu sleeps" without a thorough background in Lovecraft already? And, again, this is a rule clarification.

Most importantly,. This is neither a good nor a bad thing, but it is a thing. For example, unlike the "expanded rules" in the official Cthulhu Dark, there is only one mention that you "Choose a name and occupation" and a later mention that you can roll a die if something is within your occupational expertise, and that's it. What does that mean? How is that different than something that is within human capabilities, that has the exact same die role and chance of success? Why is it that all characters are exactly the same? For certain groups that enjoy a kind of style, that can be liberating and freeing! For others, it might be confusing or annoying (as is the idea that all combats will kill you, no matter what, no roll allowed).

<snip>

the rules presuppose not just a knowledge of Lovecraft and TTRPGs in general, but presupposes a comfort level with this exact style of fiction/narrative-oriented RPGing

I don't find it terribly outrageous that a game calling itself Cthulhu Dark should presuppose familiarity with Mythos concepts and literature. Similarly, I think, Top Secret presupposes familiarity with the spy genre, and Classic Traveller with basic sci-fi ideas like starports, starships, humanity colonising the starts, etc.

It's true that probably no one can learn to play RPGs from Cthulhu Dark but as I posted upthread, nor can they learn to play from Classic Traveller. That doesn't stop Classic Traveller from being a masterpiece of RPGing.

As for the claim that characters in Cthulhu Dark are all the same or someone would be puzzled by the idea that your roll a die if something is within your occupational expertise - seriously? The first game of Cthulhu Dark I played had a longshoreman, an investigative journalist and a legal secretary. These characters were not the same, even if we focus on nothing more than their jobs. As for what is within their occupational expertise - you don't need a rulebook to tell you that, just a bit of familiarity with the real world as filtered through whatever thematic and stereotypical conceptions the players bring to the table. Legal secretaries can take shorthand and compose memos and book meetings. Reporters can develop film and snoop. Longshoremen can lift things and rouse crowds of their fellows.

13th Age uses exactly the same approach for applying bonuses to non-combat checks based on PC backgrounds. I've never seen anyone suggest that in 13th Age all characters are the same out of combat. Conversely, if someone can only play a RPG if their ability to earn bonuses is specified with the sort of detail that Gygax's RPG specifies the perception of elves and the mining abilities of dwarves, that is a clear sign that system matters!

people might not have the same preference for games, so it is best to continue to hope that people make a diversity of games (and systems), and that people continue to support that diversity.

What is quite ironic about this is that those posters, and RPGers, who assert that system matters are the ones who are playing and supporting a diversity of games. (The iterative causation here is obvious: playing multiple diverse systems will quickly reveal that system matters, and the fact that system matters is what generates the desire to play a diversity of systems, to get those different experiences.)

It is those who play only D&D or its immediate derivatives who most prominently deny that system matters, and who most prominently sneer at the diversity of games.