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

 

[hawkeyefan]

Incidentally Rob Donoghue, one of the creators/writers for Fate, actually has "gotten pissy with people" who believe that Fate can do anything precisely because (1) system matters and (2) the Fate system is not appropriate for running every type of game.


This is the underlying point about system matters to me. I believe @hawkeyefan made a car comparison earlier, which is pretty apt. Many people don't necessarily care too much about the car - myself included - apart from the fact that it works, it's affordable, it's the right color, and it suits their daily needs (i.e., getting to work, room for family, etc.). Obviously the design and make matters, but it's an important to recognize that your Mini Cooper is not designed for off-road wilderness treks, hauling massive cargo, or top speed acceleration and handling. Automobiles are designed for different things. Can you go off-road, haul cargo, or accelerate to high speeds with your Mini Cooper? Sure, but if you want do any of these things regularly (and safely) without breaking-down your car, then you would potentially be better buying something else than a Mini Cooper.

We could expand this conversation to a lot of different products - e.g., computers, electronics, kitchen ware and appliances, hardware tools - and the underlying principle would be the same. It's about understanding the strengths and weaknesses, pros and cons, as well as the functionality and quality of the product.

I mean, we’ve focused entirely on aesthetics or functional matters with the car analogy.

If we start looking at safety, or fuel usage and emissions and the like, then what matters is going to begin to be even clearer.

Not that there are safety or environmental concerns in gaming, generally speaking. Although the topic of x-carda and safe topics may come up, and there’s always the concern of physical books and deforestation...so maybe some parallels.

Again, for the underlying point (yes, there is a difference between an ICE and an EV, horsepower does matter, if you want to offroad for real- you need to change out a lot of your vehicle incl. the gearing ratios and the undercarriage, ec.) it is a truism to say that mechanics of the car you drive matters; but it is no less true to observe that people happily buy and use cars and saying that they are using it wrong, or that they should be driving something else (that they don't want to) is rarely a successful method of persusasion.

Sure. But what happens when someone says “hey, what kind of vehicle should I get if I want to X?”

Now, I realize that’s not really what happened here. But if someone posted on a auto enthusiast forum (I suppose these are a thing? Maybe? Probably.) that “Any car will do!” I’d expect there to be a lot of pushback.

Especially given that the forum is not really for those with casual interest in the topic, but instead for folks that are fairly invested in it.

“I know you guys love cars, but they’re really all the same when you get down to it. They get you from point A to point B.”

To drop the analogy, I get that for some folks, this may be true. They have a game that works for their needs and they’re happy with it. That’s great. But I don’t think that when one of the most prominent figures in the industry makes a statement about how game systems matter that we should call out for the resulting discussion to be shut down.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I mean, we’ve focused entirely on aesthetics or functional matters with the car analogy.

If we start looking at safety, or fuel usage and emissions and the like, then what matters is going to begin to be even clearer.

Not that there are safety or environmental concerns in gaming, generally speaking. Although the topic of x-carda and safe topics may come up, and there’s always the concern of physical books and deforestation...so maybe some parallels.



Sure. But what happens when someone says “hey, what kind of vehicle should I get if I want to X?”

Now, I realize that’s not really what happened here. But if someone posted on a auto enthusiast forum (I suppose these are a thing? Maybe? Probably.) that “Any car will do!” I’d expect there to be a lot of pushback.

Especially given that the forum is not really for those with casual interest in the topic, but instead for folks that are fairly invested in it.

“I know you guys love cars, but they’re really all the same when you get down to it. They get you from point A to point B.”

To drop the analogy, I get that for some folks, this may be true. They have a game that works for their needs and they’re happy with it. That’s great. But I don’t think that when one of the most prominent figures in the industry makes a statement about how game systems matter that we should call out for the resulting discussion to be shut down.

I'm a "car goes from A to B? Good," person, in general. But given that, if I need to move something large, I call my friend with a truck.

 

[TheSword]

Thank you for at least trying to reply to me - although I still feel the frustration that lead to the block capitals because you appear to be coming from a perspective that is different from almost everyone else in the thread, attributing your own position to them, and then blaming them for the problems with your own position.

When you claim "It’s a single axis determined by many different subjective judgments" this is something coming from you personally and that explicitly contradicts what you are replying to. It does not bear any resemblance to I think anyone else in this thread. I know that rather using the single axis scale you use I use at least a three axis scale, with the main axes being:

• Does this game set out to do something interesting?
• Does it do it well?
• Is it something I want to use and if so when?

Dread, with its Jenga tower, is a good example of something I consider desirable and that does it well - but is normally not something I want to use unless I'm pulling out a one-shot game either as a filler or for Halloween. Because I do not (unlike you, seemingly) use a single axis scale, Dread has a place on my bookshelf but doesn't often come out.

And sometimes it can be based on a single mechanic. A good example would be the notorious attempt to play I think it was Phoenix Command among one of my groups (I wasn't there for that session). Apparently they gave up after spending an hour and a half resolving two gunshots. It was a dealbreaker for a game selling itself on realistic gun combat.

But all your comments about "you think everything can be reduced down to good or bad" are based on putting things on a single axis. You appear to be the only person in the thread who does this. Almost everyone else I can see is instead saying "What is this good at and when is it appropriate to use" because we do not try to reduce everything down to a single axis the way you have just said you do.

Well as a lifelong holder of minority opinions I’m ok with that. I genuinely don’t think people make decisions based on three axis models. They like one element so nudge it one way at, then don’t like another so judge it another way. Multiple axis models still end up falling somewhere on a single axis when it comes to deciding appropriateness for a task.

The reality is the multiple axis model you’re discussing could have dozen of axis. Does it do it well could itself be broken down into multiple different considerations. Character generation, action resolution, encounter building. These could all have very different view points.

On the other hand, only really the second of those axis is relevent (with all its multiple permutations) for assessing the kind of question we’re asking. If you’re not interested in the aims you won’t even get into the question. Decision to use a system will be based predominantly on the second axis you describe unless circumstances change. Time isn’t really relevent to whether a system works for you or not.

That said. It’s all a way to reach a value judgement and I’m sure on one way is as good as another. In either way a person still has to weigh up the value of different axis and reach an overall conclusion.

 

[prabe]

But what happens when someone says “hey, what kind of vehicle should I get if I want to X?”

Now, I realize that’s not really what happened here. But if someone posted on a auto enthusiast forum (I suppose these are a thing? Maybe? Probably.) that “Any car will do!” I’d expect there to be a lot of pushback.

Especially given that the forum is not really for those with casual interest in the topic, but instead for folks that are fairly invested in it.

“I know you guys love cars, but they’re really all the same when you get down to it. They get you from point A to point B.”

To drop the analogy, I get that for some folks, this may be true. They have a game that works for their needs and they’re happy with it. That’s great. But I don’t think that when one of the most prominent figures in the industry makes a statement about how game systems matter that we should call out for the resulting discussion to be shut down.

It's been a while, but I remember reading a piece in a car magazine wherein the various editors picked a vehicle they would want as their only car, and it was interesting seeing where they were willing to compromise and where they weren't (and how that was different for each contributor).

 

[TwoSix]

Again, for the underlying point (yes, there is a difference between an ICE and an EV, horsepower does matter, if you want to offroad for real- you need to change out a lot of your vehicle incl. the gearing ratios and the undercarriage, ec.) it is a truism to say that mechanics of the car you drive matters; but it is no less true to observe that people happily buy and use cars and saying that they are using it wrong, or that they should be driving something else (that they don't want to) is rarely a successful method of persusasion.

This is all true. And yet, there's also nothing wrong with pointing out that a person's aesthetic preferences might be hindering them from getting greater utility from other options. Like, there's nothing wrong with me pointing out to you that your Mini Cooper is a terrible choice to go off-roading with, and you're probably going to break your car. The argument of "Yea, but I've always driven Mini Coopers, and I really like the way they handle and feel" is both true and yet pointless.

There's also the greater point that we're posting on RPG forum, and we generally assume here that people are open to advice and constructive discussion. It's also true that there a LOT of RPGs out there, and it's unlikely that most posters are familiar with even a majority of them, due to the overwhelming prevalence of D&D. Saying, "Hey, if you want to run a horror game on a space station, maybe the Alien RPG or Cthulhu Dark is a better choice than D&D 5e" is something you say because you think there's a pretty good chance that the poster hasn't considered those other options. Maybe they have considered them and discarded them, but making a few posts explaining the relative virtues is just being a helpful poster. Obviously you don't want to be a d*ck about it, but I don't think most people here go that extreme in their advocacy for various games.

 

[TheSword]

I mean, we’ve focused entirely on aesthetics or functional matters with the car analogy.

If we start looking at safety, or fuel usage and emissions and the like, then what matters is going to begin to be even clearer.

Not that there are safety or environmental concerns in gaming, generally speaking. Although the topic of x-carda and safe topics may come up, and there’s always the concern of physical books and deforestation...so maybe some parallels.



Sure. But what happens when someone says “hey, what kind of vehicle should I get if I want to X?”

Now, I realize that’s not really what happened here. But if someone posted on a auto enthusiast forum (I suppose these are a thing? Maybe? Probably.) that “Any car will do!” I’d expect there to be a lot of pushback.

Especially given that the forum is not really for those with casual interest in the topic, but instead for folks that are fairly invested in it.

“I know you guys love cars, but they’re really all the same when you get down to it. They get you from point A to point B.”

To drop the analogy, I get that for some folks, this may be true. They have a game that works for their needs and they’re happy with it. That’s great. But I don’t think that when one of the most prominent figures in the industry makes a statement about how game systems matter that we should call out for the resulting discussion to be shut down.

They will almost certainly get a dozen different opinions though, from people who all think different things are more important than others.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Well as a lifelong holder of minority opinions I’m ok with that. I genuinely don’t think people make decisions based on three axis models. They like one element so nudge it one way at, then don’t like another so judge it another way. Multiple axis models still end up falling somewhere on a single axis when it comes to deciding appropriateness for a task.

The reality is the multiple axis model you’re discussing could have dozen of axis. Does it do it well could itself be broken down into multiple different considerations. Character generation, action resolution, encounter building. These could all have very different view points.

On the other hand, only really the second of those axis is relevent (with all its multiple permutations) for assessing the kind of question we’re asking. If you’re not interested in the aims you won’t even get into the question. Decision to use a system will be based predominantly on the second axis you describe unless circumstances change. Time isn’t really relevent to whether a system works for you or not.

That said. It’s all a way to reach a value judgement and I’m sure on one way is as good as another. In either way a person still has to weigh up the value of different axis and reach an overall conclusion.

If I were to only use a single axis I would only bother to keep one game on my shelves. I do not. If I were to only use a single axis I would only play or run one game. I do not. And if in real life I were to only use a single axis I would only use one screwdriver in my toolbox and one kitchen knife. I do not.

And no, it isn't only the second axis that is relevant. I listed those axes because they are all relevant even to a conversation like this. Is what a game tries to do relevant? Assuredly yes. My Life With Master is an excellent and influential RPG - but for 99.99% of games it is entirely the wrong tool for the job. And I'll gladly run D&D 4e for one of my groups and Apocalypse World for another - but would not run either Apocalypse World for the first group or 4e for the second because they are very different groups of players with very different interests.

I further do not believe that even you use only a single axis unless you, if given the choice, have the same meal every time. After all if you're only using a single axis one meal must be "the best".

I believe that you might have decided that one RPG is the best for you - but any time you read someone who explicitly uses more than one RPG then they are obviously using more than one axis. And accusing them of thinking there is a best is a misunderstanding - repeatedly doing so is a strawman.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It's been a while, but I remember reading a piece in a car magazine wherein the various editors picked a vehicle they would want as their only car, and it was interesting seeing where they were willing to compromise and where they weren't (and how that was different for each contributor).

Exactly. That's always going to be the situation, right? I mean, there's no perfect car. There's no perfect game. If A is important to you, then you may pick one that does A really well....even if it doesn't do B all too well.

They will almost certainly get a dozen different opinions though, from people who all think different things are more important than others.

Yeah, of course. But hopefully, folks offer the reasons for their thinking, and you can take all that into consideration, and you can realize what it is that people prioritize. Then you can think about what it is that you prioritize, and then you can make your own decision, hopefully more informed than you had been before hand.

I mean "you" in the general "anyone" sense, of course.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Sure. But what happens when someone says “hey, what kind of vehicle should I get if I want to X?”

Now, I realize that’s not really what happened here. But if someone posted on a auto enthusiast forum (I suppose these are a thing? Maybe? Probably.) that “Any car will do!” I’d expect there to be a lot of pushback.

Especially given that the forum is not really for those with casual interest in the topic, but instead for folks that are fairly invested in it.

“I know you guys love cars, but they’re really all the same when you get down to it. They get you from point A to point B.”

To drop the analogy, I get that for some folks, this may be true. They have a game that works for their needs and they’re happy with it. That’s great. But I don’t think that when one of the most prominent figures in the industry makes a statement about how game systems matter that we should call out for the resulting discussion to be shut down.

Oh, there are . There certainly are care enthusiast forums!

But here's the thing, and I can speak from experience. You will get incredibly disparate opinions as to what matters. From car enthusiasts.

They can, and will, agree on certain things- like the horsepower of the vehicle. But the sheer number of opinions you can get as to what is the proper vehicle if you want to do "X" will be staggering.

The factors that people use to determine what matters is incredibly idiosyncratic. For that matter, reasonable people can disagree about very specific things; if you want a really fun time, try going to a car enthusiast forum and having a discussion about German, Japanese, and American reliability, repair costs, and engineering in general across brands.

Everything from styling to function will vary depending on the people you talk to and their preferences. There is no single solution, even for people incredibly knowledgeable about the topic.

(If you want to see something fun on a regular basis, there is a weekly column on a website called Jalopnik where the writers offer their suggestions for a used vehicle for someone who writes in ... and the solutions cannot be more different.)

 

[prabe]

They will almost certainly get a dozen different opinions though, from people who all think different things are more important than others.

Which is, unsurprisingly, not entirely dissimilar to what happens when you talk to experienced gamers about different systems. Some people come to the gaming table wanting (or at least willing) to decide what sort of story is most-likely to emerge from play, and choose a game they feel is best-suited to that. Some people come to the gaming table wanting (or at least willing) to have the type of story that will emerge from play, emerge from play, and choose a game that is less tightly focused on one type of story. Some people are better than others at keeping multiple systems in their head at the same time. Some people are more likely than others to dive deeply into a single system at a time. All of these are mostly goods, arguably; they're just different goods that probably cannot all live inside the same person or be served by the same games.