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

 

[dragoner]

For me, the slogan system matters is an injunction to think seriously about the processes of play, and how they interact with the mechanics, in order to do a good job as a GM. Conversely, if there are aspects of play that seem like they could be improved, system matters tells me how to think about diagnosing problems and fixing them.

Though we both know that a good GM can make a bad system great. GM'ing is a lot like an art, and I am saying that as a GM who is fully recognizing some cringe moments of my own GM'ing. It is a large part of why I read these threads is to try to improve. Some systems may have better advice, except if unheeded or misunderstood, the effect is the same.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Though we both know that a good GM can make a bad system great. GM'ing is a lot like an art, and I am saying that as a GM who is fully recognizing some cringe moments of my own GM'ing. It is a large part of why I read these threads is to try to improve. Some systems may have better advice, except if unheeded or misunderstood, the effect is the same.

I don't know this. I know that a GM can ignore or change a bad system and make a game that some (many?) player will enjoy anyway, but this is just subbing in a different system and argues system matters. GM says is a system, too. But a bad system leads to poor outcomes, if used..

 

[dragoner]

I don't know this. I know that a GM can ignore or change a bad system and make a game that some (many?) player will enjoy anyway, but this is just subbing in a different system and argues system matters. GM says is a system, too. But a bad system leads to poor outcomes, if used..

It also simultaneously argues that system doesn't matter. It is the falsifiability that is lacking in the system preference mode. Good players count too, and it is also about what people are looking for out of the game as a group, a whole synthetic relationship. More concrete examples would be better.

 

[pemerton]

Though we both know that a good GM can make a bad system great. GM'ing is a lot like an art, and I am saying that as a GM who is fully recognizing some cringe moments of my own GM'ing. It is a large part of why I read these threads is to try to improve. Some systems may have better advice, except if unheeded or misunderstood, the effect is the same.

I think we're a bit at cross-purposes here. I'm not referring to system advice. I'm meaning - to use a metaphor - knowing the moving parts of the system. And understanding how they affect the play experience.

 

[dragoner]

I think we're a bit at cross-purposes here. I'm not referring to system advice. I'm meaning - to use a metaphor - knowing the moving parts of the system. And understanding how they affect the play experience.

That sounds like that is on the GM, unless you are arguing for rules light systems?

 

[Ovinomancer]

It also simultaneously argues that system doesn't matter. It is the falsifiability that is lacking in the system preference mode. Good players count too, and it is also about what people are looking for out of the game as a group, a whole synthetic relationship. More concrete examples would be better.

How does it argue that? The GM doing things by fiat is absolutely a system. One I'm not at all fond of, but tastes vary and that's fine.

Curiously, have you played a game outside if one that's seats the GM as arbiter of all rules and source of all serting?

 

[dragoner]

How does it argue that? The GM doing things by fiat is absolutely a system. One I'm not at all fond of, but tastes vary and that's fine.

Curiously, have you played a game outside if one that's seats the GM as arbiter of all rules and source of all serting?

Is it a system? I think it is more like a number line, some systems require it more than others. I have played in GM-less games, though I found that they were a lot like GM'd games, except where one player was more the leader. Which are great games, except we usually do more traditional rpg's for multiple sessions.

 

[pemerton]

That sounds like that is on the GM, unless you are arguing for rules light systems?

I'm not 100% sure what you mean by that's on the GM - maybe I agree, because upthread I talked about doing a good job as GM.

But to try to explain what I mean, I'll point to the earlier discussion in this thread about running a gritty futuristic sci-fi horror scenario. Part of any system that is likely to be used for this is the possibility of players "expanding" or "breaking out of" the GM's framed scene by having their PCs use communicators to speak to other characters (be those PCs not yet in the scene, or NPCs). So part of being a good GM in this case is thinking about how to respond to that player capability.

Whereas that's not something I have to think about when GMing Prince Valiant or 4e D&D.

 

[dragoner]

I'm not 100% sure what you mean by that's on the GM - maybe I agree, because upthread I talked about doing a good job as GM.

But to try to explain what I mean, I'll point to the earlier discussion in this thread about running a gritty futuristic sci-fi horror scenario. Part of any system that is likely to be used for this is the possibility of players "expanding" or "breaking out of" the GM's framed scene by having their PCs use communicators to speak to other characters (be those PCs not yet in the scene, or NPCs). So part of being a good GM in this case is thinking about how to respond to that player capability.

Whereas that's not something I have to think about when GMing Prince Valiant or 4e D&D.

Which I agree with 100%, except that is what I think of more as a genre choice. Would you say that having some sort of system mastery is part of being a good GM?

 

[Campbell]

System as defined in the System Matters essay is talking about the actual process of play. It includes the division of roles between the players (authorities and responsibilities). It includes how scenarios are designed, the sort of character players are supposed play, what the goals of play are, etc. It's a lot more than just genre. It's also more than advice. It's process/instructions.

The central conceit of the essay is that the process of play should be designed - that play should be done with intent rather than on an ad hoc basis. That changing the process of play is an act of game design and should be treated with the weight of a design decision. Basically treating RPGs the same we would any other game. You do not have to play the game as designed, but you should know when you are breaking that and changes to the game as designed should be somewhat transparent to all participants. People should know what they are agreeing to play.