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

 

[prabe]

Sure, but does that mean "system matters" or "system doesn't matter"?

I think it means "both" and "it depends."

Obviously, to someone who wants a specific type of story to emerge from play, and wants to play a game made to generate that type of story, system matters a lot. They want to use BitD to tell Leverage-esque heist stories, and Dread to tell looming inevitable doom horror stories (as I understand Dread, anyway), and OSR or actual old D&D to do dungeoncrawls.

To someone who wants the type of story (as well as the story itself) to emerge from play, it probably doesn't matter anything like as much. They pick a game they know well, and they run that for whatever types of story come up.

Now, there might still be reasons for either someone to pick one system over another. Maybe one wants a more-lethal combat system; maybe one doesn't care much for character classes; maybe one prefers dice pools or role-under or some sort of averaging dice or whatever. One can obviously go with mechanics one finds amenable, regardless of whether one is looking for a game tightly focused on one type of story or not.

 

[TheSword]

So ... because there are fewer variables you make the decision more complex?

Not sure how you reached this conclusion. It’s simpler I made that clear.

If multiple axes are unhelpful then how in the name of the little black pig is a single axis helpful? Especially when talking about games.

Have you every tried to plot multiple axis? I can manage 4 if I have enough sheets of paper. Mathematicians could figure more I’m sure but that’s beyond me.

If I’m looking at a gym membership it’s easy. I plot cost vs useful services and pick. Either the greatest cost/benefit or the highest services I can afford if price isn’t a problem.

Try doing that when there are dozens of competing factors. Exactly as has been described for a car. You have to move to a sliding scale nudging up or down the scale dependent on whether you value something.

 

[TwoSix]

If I had to make a cogent argument for the "System doesn't matter" perspective, it would be this.

"The heart of RPGing is based on negotiation between the players as to the fictional state of the characters and their environment. All any system does is codify expectations to remove the need to negotiate certain states in the story. As such, any game can be used for any narrative by simply removing rules that codify those expectations and moving back to negotiation between participants."

 

[TheSword]

... It doesn't all "just come down to what works for a given individual/table"...

...If I know that of a group sitting at the table one of the players is allergic to peanuts and another completely loves hot food both are going to impact my cooking.

You pick the game to suit the group... because every group is different and will get on with different elements differently.

 

[TwoSix]

You pick the game to suit the group... because every group is different and will get on with different elements differently.

In other words, the system matters because you pick different systems for different groups of players.

 

[prabe]

You pick the game to suit the group... because every group is different and will get on with different elements differently.

Or if it's a longstanding group you try new systems on like clothes. Something fits, or it doesn't.

(A different approach, I think both are plausibly correct.)

 

[prabe]

In other words, the system matters because you pick different systems for different groups of players.

I'm on record that the people around the table matter at least as much as the printed/published rules.

 

[TwoSix]

I'm on record that the people around the table matter at least as much as the printed/published rules.

I don't think anyone on either side would argue differently.

 

[Fenris-77]

@TheSword - Picking an RPG isn't an exercise in math. I'm perfectly capable of thinking about which game I want based on more than one axis though, and I'm really not sure why you seem so keen to make that a prohibitively difficult task. I also think that your contention that there are dozens of competing axes involved here is at least a little spurious. If you know what you want to run there aren't dozens of things to consider unless you're trying to assume a baseline of 'every system you know makes the initial list' which doesn't really pass the laugh test for me. Once I have a goal, or a specific game task, or desired genre emulation, the list is already smaller.

It's not that I disagree with you about there possibly being a significant subjective component here, but I think that the level of subjectivity is probably directionally proportional to a lack of deeper understanding of or experience with the systems you are choosing from. Once you really know a system you move past a single axis of interpretation. Sure, you can collapse a deeper reading of X, Y, and Z into a single 'I like it' or 'I don't', but that really doesn't make it a single axis exercise.

 

[Aldarc]

You are right. It doesn’t disprove it, because there is nothing that can be proven or disproven in that situation. It all just comes down to what works for a given individual/table.

To be clear I’m not saying system doesn’t matter. Just that teasing out what will work for a given individual is like deciding what is the best recipe of a dish. It’s gonna depend.

I still kinda disagree with the idea that "there is nothing that can be proven or disproven in that situation," as we still can talk about what a product is designed for and whether it succeeds in that regard, or other elements that are independent of personal preferences. Regardless of whether we have a personal preference for a given car or whether leather seats are a deal breaker, we know what the car was designed for and we can discuss the quality of the product designed to be a sports car.

Regardless of personal preferences or make/break points, certain products are clearly designed to do certain things better than other available products while some products are designed to do similar things albeit in different ways.