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

 

[Ovinomancer]

That's still System Matters, though. You've just replaced a published system with an unpublished one. GM Decides or The Group Decides are absolutely systems (or at least components of a system).

Yes, I feel this this is often missed in these discussions. Also, the argument that you can do something in D&D by changing things is a tacit admission that system matters -- you've had to change it to do the thing. Often, though, this 'change' is really just ignore the system, which, again, goes back to system matters.

 

[prabe]

Ugh not me. The people at my table stink! Who cares about them?

Again, I'm obviously kidding.....but let's take your comment and then apply it to the discussion here.

"Participants don't matter."

I don't know if anyone here would actually argue in support of that statement. Any game will obviously be shaped by the people who play in it. Which is why I'm kind of surprised that anyone would argue in support of the system not mattering.

As I said, there have seemed to be people who've said, at least, that the system is more important than the people at the table--which isn't the same thing as saying the people don't matter at all. I don't think anyone is really saying the rules of the game don't matter, just that they don't matter more than the people at the table.

 

[TwoSix]

That's still System Matters, though. You've just replaced a published system with an unpublished one. GM Decides or The Group Decides are absolutely systems (or at least components of a system).

I'd disagree; I would say it's analogous to "The type of car doesn't matter, as long as it goes from A to B". RPGs are all about negotiation of a fiction, just like cars are all about locomotion.

 

[Campbell]

From my perspective the difference between roleplaying games, at least one that are not as similar as say D&D, Pathfinder, Shadow of the Demon Lord and Warhammer is not like the difference between different types of automobiles where one is a comparable replacement. It's more like Risk and Monopoly or Poker and Spades. Playing different games provides an experience that you will never reliably experience in somebody's D&D game without altering the process of play.

Modern D&D is not some middle point. It's a specific game experience that is finely tuned to deliver compelling play to people that want that experience. That's a lot of people in modern D&D's case.

 

[Ovinomancer]

As I said, there have seemed to be people who've said, at least, that the system is more important than the people at the table--which isn't the same thing as saying the people don't matter at all. I don't think anyone is really saying the rules of the game don't matter, just that they don't matter more than the people at the table.

This is a slightly different formulation, but I still think it's a misunderstanding. How can system matter more than the people choosing which system to play? This gives system an agency it doesn't have, or removes agency from the participants. System cannot matter more than the people at the table because the people at the table choose the system. Power over a thing, and all that.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'd disagree; I would say it's analogous to "The type of car doesn't matter, as long as it goes from A to B". RPGs are all about negotiation of a fiction, just like cars are all about locomotion.

No, it would be more like saying that cars don't matter because there's lots of ways to get from A to B. In yours, you've explicitly selected a car, which matters.

 

[TheSword]

I think there are some elements of systems that seem to matter a great deal to some people that are utterly irrelevant to other people.

How many stats you have, how you calculate starting stats, what dice you roll, how you heal, and a pretty staggering number of things we argue about on here that most be people just let go over their head.

One of the reasons I think D&D 5e has done well is for a lot of these areas they’ve said... “we don’t care what method you use. Pick what you like.” Thats powerful segmented marketing there.

In other words it doesn’t matter what system you use... as long as you’re having fun.

 

[heretic888]

I'd disagree; I would say it's analogous to "The type of car doesn't matter, as long as it goes from A to B". RPGs are all about negotiation of a fiction, just like cars are all about locomotion.

Yes, but not all negotiation of fiction is GM Decides or Group Decides. Even these two systems alone are vastly different and produce profoundly different experiences at the table in regards to agency, distribution of authority, expectations of play, and so on.

In this case, its more like taking a taxi vs carpooling with some buddies to get somewhere. Even if its the same vehicle and we're going to the same place, the ride there is going to be a totally different experience!

 

[Aldarc]

Personally, based on the fact that most of the participants in this thread have been posting here for a long time, I have no trouble saying I think none of those posters believe system trumps all.

System, System über alles, Über alles in das Spiel!

 

[hawkeyefan]

As I said, there have seemed to be people who've said, at least, that the system is more important than the people at the table--which isn't the same thing as saying the people don't matter at all. I don't think anyone is really saying the rules of the game don't matter, just that they don't matter more than the people at the table.

I don't know if anyone said that, but maybe? I mean, I think the question of which is more important might be interesting, but of course it will vary. I think both are important and both will impact the game.

If I had to pick one in some hypothetical gun to the head situation, then I'd probably say that the participants are more important.....but even then, I might pause just long enough that my captor would shoot, and the answer would remain a mystery.