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]

A lot of what you refer to here has nothing to do with system: being out of print, production values and presentation more generally, translations, etc.

Such things are inextricably linked to system though. Without the delivery mechanism and conveying the system to people in a way people will appreciate, the system doesn’t really matter.

And the fact that you might find a system too complicated or too simple hardly suggest that system doesn't matter.

I was using it as examples of why one persons claim that a person should use DW, Fate, Traveller, D&D or PF2 might not be the best vehicle for some people. Despite its advocates raving about it and getting pissy with people who disagree. System does matter to me, just not as much as other things.

Also, not all of us are RPGing to tell stories.

Replace tell stories with play a game then.

I thought you were opposed to these judgements of quality.

It’s a personal opinion. I’m allowed an opinion about quality. I’m just not allowed to tell you yours is invalid.

But in any event, I don't think D&D could be used for a scientific gritty futuristic horror game. It doesn't have the right components in character building or action resolution.

Here we go again. You can absolutely have a d20, 6 ability score, skill proficiency based system using 5e in space. Only a couple of classes would fit, most equipment would be obsolete and many items wouldn’t be available in the rules but you could do it. It just probably wouldn’t be very deep, satisfying or fun. It’s all relative.

 

[TheSword]

There are reasons the system isn't right for you - and that is fine. But that doesn't make the system other than great at what it does. And your objections all boil down to "I don't want what the system and setting does". There is nothing at all wrong with not wanting what a system does - but those do not in any way mean that the system isn't good at what it does.

The Leverage system is actually excellent at replicating Leverage. It isn't any better at replicating Leverage-style heists than Blades in the Dark because Blades more or less took the heist rules from Leverage and very slightly adapted them. The Blades downtime and turf mechanics don't fit the Leverage setting that well, so Leverage is better for a full Leverage game but the heist rules themselves are every bit as close as D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder. (At many levels Blades really is the offspring of Leverage and Apocalypse World with the addition of Stress).

Being great at what it does is subjective. If other elements wrapped in with system or components of system dont allow a particular person to use it in a way that works, then it isn’t great for them. To be clear I’m not talking specifics here so please don’t get drawn into one system it’s irrelevant.

Any way, I’m repeating myself and it’s probably getting annoying. So I’ll stop replying to claims that a systems great and that people for whom isn't great are wrong.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Being great at what it does is subjective. If other elements wrapped in with system or components of system dont allow a particular person to use it in a way that works, then it isn’t great for them. To be clear I’m not talking specifics here so please don’t get drawn into one system it’s irrelevant.

Any way, I’m repeating myself and it’s probably getting annoying. So I’ll stop replying to claims that a systems great, people for whom isn't great are wrong.

Finding some of those claims to reply to would be a good start. Just because a system is great at what it does doesn't mean it is what you want. A good guide dog is not and will never be a cat. And if you want to spend a lot of time planning your heists a Leverage-style heist game is not going to be what you want precisely because it is a good system for Leverage style heists.

The point of specifying what a system is good at is so you can work out what will fit what you want.

 

[pemerton]

You can absolutely have a d20, 6 ability score, skill proficiency based system using 5e in space. Only a couple of classes would fit, most equipment would be obsolete and many items wouldn’t be available in the rules but you could do it. It just probably wouldn’t be very deep, satisfying or fun. It’s all relative.

How's it gritty? What skill is used to pilot a starship? Or operate a computer? Does a fighter's archery fighting style give a bonus to hit with blasters?

To me this is like saying that Prince Valiant can be used to play Earthsea because all you have to do is graft on a player-side system for magic.

 

[TheSword]

Finding some of those claims to reply to would be a good start. Just because a system is great at what it does doesn't mean it is what you want. A good guide dog is not and will never be a cat. And if you want to spend a lot of time planning your heists a Leverage-style heist game is not going to be what you want precisely because it is a good system for Leverage style heists.

The point of specifying what a system is good at is so you can work out what will fit what you want.

Yes, but game systems are usually not simple binary systems. They have pros and cons. I’m amazed that you think everything can be reduced down to good or bad.

 

[pemerton]

I’m allowed an opinion about quality. I’m just not allowed to tell you yours is invalid.

I don't know who's telling whom that anything is invalid. Upthread I also expressed an opinion about quality, namely, that Cthulhu Dark is a better system than CoC, especially for Mythos RPGing. Why is your opinion OK but mine not?

EDIT: I mean, I can rephrase mine to strictly parallel yours: CoC can be used to do Mythos RPGing, it's just not especially good for it.

Assuming that Mythos RPGing is feasible at all, it probably follows from the preceding sentence that there is another system that is better, just as - presumably - it follows from your judgement of quality that there is a system that is better for gritty, futuristic sci-fi horror. In my case, I've nominated the better system: Cthulhu Dark.

 

[TheSword]

How's it gritty? What skill is used to pilot a starship? Or operate a computer? Does a fighter's archery fighting style give a bonus to hit with blasters?

To me this is like saying that Prince Valiant can be used to play Earthsea because all you have to do is graft on a player-side system for magic.

You have totally missed the point. I’m not saying it would be better than any other system. I’m saying if you took all the elements out that didn’t fit you could still replicate a very restricted element of that type of game

The reason for the point was that every game is weighed good or bad in relation to what else is available. Good when assessing quality is a subjective term. As is bad.

Regarding my other post you claimed

“I thought you were opposed to these judgements of quality.”

Where I responded you can but recognizing that they are your opinion and only valid to you and other people as far as you understand them.

 

[pemerton]

You have totally missed the point. I’m not saying it would be better than any other system. I’m saying if you took all the elements out that didn’t fit you could still replicate a very restricted element of that type of game

What element? That there are characters. With STR, DEX etc. And we have a sense of how well they can climb or fight with swords.

That's not a "very restricted element" of a gritty futuristic sci-fi horror RPG. It's not really an element of it at all. There's no grit, nothing futuristic or sci-fi, and no horror.

 

[TheSword]

What element? That there are characters. With STR, DEX etc. And we have a sense of how well they can climb or fight with swords.

That's not a "very restricted element" of a gritty futuristic sci-fi horror RPG. It's not really an element of it at all. There's no grit, nothing futuristic or sci-fi, and no horror.

And fists.

Do you understand the point though that all game systems are good or bad in relation to other systems?

There is a spectrum between ‘does exactly what you want’ and ‘does nothing of what you want’ and that no roleplaying game does nothing of what you want because they all at least have a player character even if nothing else about the game is right. All we debate is where on the spectrum a particular game system falls... but that will vary for every person. How good a game system is depends on how close it matches ‘exactly what you want.’

 

[turnip_farmer]

How's it gritty? What skill is used to pilot a starship? Or operate a computer? Does a fighter's archery fighting style give a bonus to hit with blasters?

Intelligence would be used for piloting ships and operating computers. You'd gain a bonus to your hit roll with blasters if you were proficient in blasters. I don't think there's any such thing as an archery fighting style in 5e.

Not trying to claim that 5e would be a great system for science-fiction, but the fact that you would need to replace proficiencies referring to medieval stuff with proficiencies referring to sci-fi stuff is obviously not a stumbling block.