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

 

[pemerton]

I want to pick up on the idea of creativity and connect it to what @innerdude has posted in the last couple of days.

Imagine playing a fantasy RPG, with PCs who - as per the established fiction - are heroic in power. One of them wants to reforge a magic weapon (a bit like Siegfried in the eponymous opera by Wagner).

Or imagine playing a fantasy RPG, with PCs who - as per the established fiction - are demigod-like in power. One of the PCs wants to seal the Abyss at the 66th layer, so that all the lower layers will "drain out" through the bottomless pit of entropy that is at the bottom of the whole thing. (This is not utterly different from the feat of magic performed by Ged at the end of The Farthest Shore.)

How is this to be resolved?

Or to put it another way, who has the power to establish (i) at the table, that this action declaration is "within bounds" rather than out-of-bounds, and (ii) of the fiction, that it includes the weapon being reforged or the Abyss being sealed.

I think a standard response - which has its origins, I think, in Gygax's advice in his DMG on creating magical items - is that it is the GM's job to come up with a recipe or ritual, and it is the player's job to perform actions within a context broadly framed and adjudicated by the GM that establish (i) the PC possesses the necessary ingredients, and (ii) the PC then performs the appropriate steps with the ingredients. This locates all the creativity on the GM side.

Another response - that I associate with 4e D&D and Cortex+ Heroic/MHRP - is that the player decides what is necessary in the fiction, and the GM maps those fictional requirements onto the mechanical framework, relying on a robust set of rules for establishing difficulties, the mechanical "oomph" of various player-side expenditures, etc. This locates the bulk of the fiction-oriented creativity on the player side, while the GM's job is to manage the mechanics.

Those two responses don't exhaust the possibilities (Burning Wheel would handle these sorts of action declarations differently from either of the above ways). But they show at least one way in which creativity doesn't contrast with system but rather is something that interacts with system in various ways.

 

[Emerikol]

comments....

comments....

I really just wanted you all to know I was replying to you guys.

I think the big issue and misunderstanding is that you think people like me are questing for realism. The whole thing about swallowing could be as simple as the creatures that don't do not prefer to eat their prey alive. It's not the sort of thing that causes difficulty. You keep wanting to push me into a camp that I am not in at all. I do not want to play a hyper realistic game with lots of specific rules for every little thing. That is not the inevitable conclusion of people like me. If anything the OSR people are rebelling against that.

Some can't stand the thought that there is a consistent thread that runs through my thinking on objectionable stuff. We've argued that one for ages. I'm not abandoning that position but for purposes of "does system matter", it doesn't matter. If my preferences are just random or if they are based on a particular discernible consistent viewpoint really is irrelevant for this discussion. You know what I think and I know what many of you think.

When a system implements rules that I have a hard time explaining when playing in my playstyle then it's a system I tend to avoid.

I want specific things out of a game for the style I play.

1. Favors in character viewpoint play. This means avoiding metagame/dissociative mechanics. (Again if you can't accept that I have a proper theory then just accept it as preference. I believe I do have a rock solid theory but you may not.)
2. Favors exploration of a well designed sandbox world that had some thought put into it. Obviously, the sandbox area is far better defined than a distant country but that distant country has enough defined to satisfy the players needs. The world is a living world that is changing even when the PCs are not affecting it. DMs that make it up as they go are generally not favored. That is not to say you never make some minor detail up but the goal is to have a well developed world.
3. Adventures are player skill challenges. Preparation is important. Dungeon crawling in a careful and systematic way is important. Combats require tactics and at times strategy. Resource management is a concern.
4. Ultimately as the PCs gain in power and influence they interact with the world even more. All the discussions about Domain management and books supporting that play exist because that is what is wanted for this particular style of play. World engagement is big.
5. The dice fall where they may and bad things can happen to PCs. From death to energy drain, rust monsters, etc... all that stuff that "modern" game designers say is bad are things desired by my style of play.

I don't condemn any other style of play. I just don't prefer it for myself. I've been playing D&D since all of the above was the assumed and before that. So I lived through the OSR days when the O was actually new. So you can argue that you didn't play that way in those days, but I did. I played that way all the way through 3e. I realized though that with each succeeding edition, it was getting harder and harder to play the style of play I preferred. So when for the first time, I didn't buy the next edition of D&D (5e), I just let go. I let go of a name and I sought out games that suited me. Right now I'm finding Adventurer Conqueror King interesting though C&C has a lot of good ideas. My ideal game would probably be a fusion of some of what they do.

 

[Manbearcat]

3. Adventures are player skill challenges. Preparation is important. Dungeon crawling in a careful and systematic way is important. Combats require tactics and at times strategy. Resource management is a concern.

I want this as well.

To that end (where system mattering comes into play), out of system I expect the following:

a) The gamestate and the fiction are dynamic and coherent with each other (if danger or risk or stakes increase in the fiction, the gamestate follows in kind...and vice versa).

b) Decision-points are weighty. Consequences have teeth.

c) (a) and (b) can only be true if the (i) the system components are well integrated with each other and (ii) the players understand both the constituent parts and that holistic integration.

So take the following move:

When you shelter against the elements or attempt to stave off the effects of exposure, say how and roll +Gear (*):

10+ the desired effect comes to pass
7-9 the desired effect comes to pass but you lose 1 Adventuring Gear
6- you lose 1 AG and face a danger

* 5 or more Adventuring Gear is +3
3-4 AG is +2
1-2 AG is +1

So this works if all of the following conditions are true:

* The principles that underwrite how play progresses are transparent and understood and the corresponding moves made (both GM and player moves) work in concert with those principles.

* The elements and/or exposure faced is of sufficient pressure (both in frequency and potency).

* Losing Adventuring Gear comes with inferable cost while spending it and gaining it comes with inerrable boon and the economy of those 3 are (again) well-integrated.

---

So an example might be:

- 3 PCs have 7 total Adventuring Gear remaining.

- Including the present phase, the Perilous Journey through a high Himalayas glacial hike to ultimately scale an Everest-like peak ahead of them has 3 more stages (each with a Scout, Navigate, and Manage Provisions/Make Camp & Take Watch phase).

- A 6- result on a Navigate yields a significant Danger (the Navigator accidentally led the group to a dead-end ravine with sheer walls 60 feet high while a brutal storm will overtake them within the hour).

Decision-point:

* Hoping to stay ahead of the storm and keep moving, thereby not exacerbating their supplies and facing more Journey phases, the best climber could spend 1 Adventuring Gear to clamber up the face with crampons, rope, and pitons to quickly bolt a route to belay the others, taking +1 to a Defy Danger Str (likely being anywhere from +3 to +4) move. But this will ablate their Adventuring Gear down to 6 (putting them closer to the threshold of +3/+2 with a fair amount of Journey remaining) and a success w/ complication/cost or a worse danger could still emerge from this effort.

or

* The PCs could accept the fate of exacerbating their Journey phases, make shelter and hunker down, hoping to deal with the elements via a +Gear check (+3 in this scenario), and hoping that they don't lose/spend Gear in the process. This decision is made more complicated if there is a Danger Clock (maybe the dark Sorcerer in the keep at the top of the mountain is monitoring their progress and every time the Clock fills, he acts against them) that will invariably tick the longer the journey goes.

---

Every aspect of system matters to the multivariate decision-making in the above scenario. The more opaque/less player-facing things are vs the more transparent/player-facing things are matters deeply. The resource economy being sensibly (even if not perfectly) put together and well-integrated matters deeply. The gamestate : fiction match matters deeply. The coherency of the principles that underwrite the trajectory of play and moves made by all parties matters deeply.

If any one of those are off (the threshold of which will be clear in the play), play will become wobbly or entirely unwieldy (historically...this is where GMs exert Force to paper over the system problems and to create the illusion of meaningful decisions by the players).

System matters.

 

[pemerton]

I think the big issue and misunderstanding is that you think people like me are questing for realism. The whole thing about swallowing could be as simple as the creatures that don't do not prefer to eat their prey alive. It's not the sort of thing that causes difficulty. You keep wanting to push me into a camp that I am not in at all. I do not want to play a hyper realistic game with lots of specific rules for every little thing. That is not the inevitable conclusion of people like me. If anything the OSR people are rebelling against that.

Some can't stand the thought that there is a consistent thread that runs through my thinking on objectionable stuff.

<snip>

I want specific things out of a game for the style I play.

1. Favors in character viewpoint play. This means avoiding metagame/dissociative mechanics. (Again if you can't accept that I have a proper theory then just accept it as preference. I believe I do have a rock solid theory but you may not.)
2. Favors exploration of a well designed sandbox world that had some thought put into it. Obviously, the sandbox area is far better defined than a distant country but that distant country has enough defined to satisfy the players needs. The world is a living world that is changing even when the PCs are not affecting it. DMs that make it up as they go are generally not favored. That is not to say you never make some minor detail up but the goal is to have a well developed world.
3. Adventures are player skill challenges. Preparation is important. Dungeon crawling in a careful and systematic way is important. Combats require tactics and at times strategy. Resource management is a concern.

I don't think you're questing for realism. You made that clear upthread.

But I think the idea of "rules-as-physics" that you described isn't really being upheld if we have to make up ad hoc stories like "dragon turtles do not prefer to eat their prey alive" in order to reconcile the mechanics with the fiction.

A consistent feature of D&D is various sorts of monsters with special abilities that (i) add zest and (ii) add challenge. This fits with your 3 above. I think it puts pressure on your 1 and 2, because the consistency of the fiction is being compromised in order to achieve 3.

It's like a pit that only opens when someone prods 8 to 10 feet in front of it. This can be a fine challenge in a D&D-type game, but it's absolutely nonsense from any perspective on the fiction that looks for coherence or a verisimilitudinous world.

The same is true of the super-tetanus pits, the ziggurat room, etc in White Plume Mountain.

 

[innerdude]

. . . in Star Wars SAGA, Luke Skywalker (RotJ era) is apparently a human Scout 1/Jedi 7/Ace Pilot 2/Jedi Knight 1 and CL 11.

The idea that Luke can do ... anything ... he did in Return of the Jedi because of some RPG rules published almost a quarter of a century later is ridiculous and violates the laws of causality. The rules are, instead, intended to approximate the Star Wars setting that predated the Star Wars SAGA RPG rules and to make it easier to approximate that setting. And if I want Luke Skywalker to do something he does in the film that the rules don't cover then the rules are the issue.

This exact kind of thing, more specifically with D&D 3.5, but identical in concept, was what precipitated my first hints of discontent with D&D as a system back in 2009.

Even before I knew anything about GNS theory, Robin Laws, PbtA, or anything else, this sort of thing started brewing my discontent with the d20 "chassis."

Why was it so dang hard to model characters from fiction? Why did you have to pile on 10, 11, 12 levels of mish-mashed classes and prestige classes, just so a character could even vaguely resemble how he/she is presented in their fictional universe?

If the claim is that the "rules should model the physics of the world," then D&D's class-based structure fails that premise right from the start.

For a long time my solution was to then try to bend the D&D 3.5 rules every which way to hold it together. It's why I bought splatbooks---I was looking for the exact perfect combination of classes/prestige classes/feats that could effectively model Specific Character Concept X.

Even now, the #1 thing that holds me back from re-embracing D&D 5e (or Pathfinder 2) isn't hit points, or tactical combat, or that the assumed mode of play is "GM fiat has to cover all of the rules gaps." It's that going back into a class-based system feels like a straitjacket.

Which, once again, is another in a never-ending stream of evidences that yes, system matters.

*Edit: FFG Star Wars' "talent tree" system is about as far into a "class/level" based system I'm willing to journey these days. It isn't my ideal, but at least buying cross-tree talents is pretty straightforward, and the rules support it out of the gate. It's still probably more restrictive than I'd prefer, but I enjoy the narrative dice mechanic immensely, which covers a multitude of sins.

 

[Emerikol]

I don't think you're questing for realism. You made that clear upthread.

But I think the idea of "rules-as-physics" that you described isn't really being upheld if we have to make up ad hoc stories like "dragon turtles do not prefer to eat their prey alive" in order to reconcile the mechanics with the fiction.

The rules are the reality of the universe. They are the observed phenomena of that world. If I were a "scientist" of that world, I would observe that some creatures behaved in certain ways. I threw out an explanation off the cuff for why the reality is true. It is the reality of the world though. If you struggle with the game reality then it's bad for you and I think we can agree on that. I've never really struggled that much with the idea that some monsters swallowed PCs and others didn't. I'm not sure why but I just never did. Other things bother me though. So sure if something about the rules bothered me enough, I would have to houserule. Systems that make me houserule in a wholesale way are bad systems for me. Emphasis on "for me". Though I'd argue if you have to houserule a game massively then it's probably not the best system for you either.

A consistent feature of D&D is various sorts of monsters with special abilities that (i) add zest and (ii) add challenge. This fits with your 3 above. I think it puts pressure on your 1 and 2, because the consistency of the fiction is being compromised in order to achieve 3.

It's like a pit that only opens when someone prods 8 to 10 feet in front of it. This can be a fine challenge in a D&D-type game, but it's absolutely nonsense from any perspective on the fiction that looks for coherence or a verisimilitudinous world.

The same is true of the super-tetanus pits, the ziggurat room, etc in White Plume Mountain.

I think those things bothers you more than they bothers me. I don't think it is a consistency issue though as the rules are the reality of the world. Perhaps it is a versimilitudinous issue for some people.

I will agree though that in 1e some of the magic in dungeons was "unexplained" by the rules as written and that at times posed a problem as the GM has to allow that a sufficiently powerful character should be able to replicate those things. If that became a problem, then I'd likely have to house rule it. The DM just stating you have to do this and this and this would be okay though. That would become the reality of that world.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I really just wanted you all to know I was replying to you guys.

I think the big issue and misunderstanding is that you think people like me are questing for realism.

I don't. I think you are questing for familiarity. And familiarity is the reason you favour a lot of what you do despite it being against what you claim your preferences are.

1. Favors in character viewpoint play.

D&D was explicitly a hacked tabletop wargame, founded round "pawn play" where you play from the top down rather than in character. If I want a good game for in character viewpoint play D&D is very low down on my list of where to look. Apocalypse World and its better hacks are right at the top.

This means avoiding metagame/dissociative mechanics. (Again if you can't accept that I have a proper theory then just accept it as preference. I believe I do have a rock solid theory but you may not.)

If I'm looking to avoid metagame/dissociative mechanics I ignore any game with
(a) consequence free hit points
(b) hardcoded classes
(c) character levels

All these are, to me, pure metagame mechanics and have been known to disassociate me. And all of them are integral to every version D&D.

5. The dice fall where they may and bad things can happen to PCs. From death to energy drain, rust monsters, etc... all that stuff that "modern" game designers say is bad are things desired by my style of play.

Again what you are saying you dislike is part of the raw essence of D&D. Any game in which an unarmoured fighter can take max damage from an orc swinging with an axe and the worst they will need is a few days in bed is one that is deliberately set up to ensure that bad things don't happen to PCs.

The two games I started with were WFRP and GURPS. Both games in which injuries in ordinary fights matter because you might actually take a serious injury and where, rather than having the occasional piece of weirdness like a rust monster or spectre showing up and being an awkward fit with the overall theme of D&D every fight has the risk of suffering a genuinely serious injury. The notion of D&D as "combat as war" is about as pretentious to me as a group of paintball players talking about how paintball is war. And the idea that D&D has ever been a system where bad things happen to PCs is, to me, ludicrous.

So when I hear you say what you want and look at what you do I find a stark disconnect.

 

[corwyn77]

This exact kind of thing, more specifically with D&D 3.5, but identical in concept, was what precipitated my first hints of discontent with D&D as a system back in 2009.

Even before I knew anything about GNS theory, Robin Laws, PbtA, or anything else, this sort of thing started brewing my discontent with the d20 "chassis."

Why was it so dang hard to model characters from fiction? Why did you have to pile on 10, 11, 12 levels of mish-mashed classes and prestige classes, just so a character could even vaguely resemble how he/she is presented in their fictional universe?

If the claim is that the "rules should model the physics of the world," then D&D's class-based structure fails that premise right from the start.

For a long time my solution was to then try to bend the D&D 3.5 rules every which way to hold it together. It's why I bought splatbooks---I was looking for the exact perfect combination of classes/prestige classes/feats that could effectively model Specific Character Concept X.

Even now, the #1 thing that holds me back from re-embracing D&D 5e (or Pathfinder 2) isn't hit points, or tactical combat, or that the assumed mode of play of is "GM fiat has to cover all of the rules gaps." It's that going back into a class-based system feels like a straitjacket.

Which, once again, is another in a never-ending stream of evidences that yes, system matters.

*Edit: FFG Star Wars' "talent tree" system is about as far into a "class/level" based system I'm willing to journey these days. It isn't my ideal, but at least buying cross-tree talents is pretty straightforward, and the rules support it out of the gate. It's still probably more restrictive than I'd prefer, but I enjoy the narrative dice mechanic immensely, which covers a multitude of sins.

You could probably just eliminate the penalties/restrictions from going cross-tree. Would that work?

 

[innerdude]

You could probably just eliminate the penalties/restrictions from going cross-tree. Would that work?

I'll never know, because I don't even bother with D&D or anything else on the d20 "chassis" any more.

Just the other night I wandered down to my game shelf and pulled my copies of Fantasy Craft and Arcana Evolved off the shelf. The thought that immediately followed: "I am literally never going to play these games, ever, nor do I have any desire to even bother attempting to re-learn the intricacies of the d20 system."

At this point they're merely relics of a distant gaming past that doesn't need revisiting. If I want "traditional" style gaming, Savage Worlds does it better for me than any version of D&D, new, retroclone, or otherwise.

But I'm veering pretty hard into simpler / narrative style systems at the moment, regardless.

*Edit: I remember now why I bought Fantasy Craft in the first place. Because it at least dispensed with the ridiculous notion in 3.5 that NPCs had to adhere to the same build structure as the PCs. If an NPC needed to have certain stats/abilities, you just gave it to them.

*Edit 2: I just realized, @corwyn77 , that you were referring to FFG Star Wars. That's a good question! I don't have a firm enough grip on FFG SW yet to want to houserule. Once I start playing it again, it would definitely be something I'd consider. I have Genesys too, though someone on these forums (I think it was @aramis erak) said that switching to the Genesys talent "pyramid" vs. SW talent trees could unbalance gameplay in favor of the characters.

 

[Manbearcat]

Back to this move I posted just above:

When you shelter against the elements or attempt to stave off the effects of exposure, say how and roll +Gear (*):

10+ the desired effect comes to pass
7-9 the desired effect comes to pass but you lose 1 Adventuring Gear
6- you lose 1 AG and face a danger

* 5 or more Adventuring Gear is +3
3-4 AG is +2
1-2 AG is +1

* If system didn't matter, then it wouldn't make a difference if this procedure was table-facing or GM-facing.

* If system didn't matter, then it wouldn't make a difference if the result spread and the mathematical distribution was perturbed (12+ = the desired effect comes to pass, 10-11 = the desired effect comes to pass but you lose 1 Adventuring Gear, 9- = you lose 1 AG and face a danger).

* If system didn't matter, then it wouldn't make a difference if the economy of Adventuring Gear to Gear Score was entirely different (7+ = +3 and 5-6 = +2 etc).

* If system didn't matter then the Load/Encumbrance system and how much load Adventuring Gear is either wouldn't be integrated with the rest of the system, would be hand-waved away, would be handled by GM fiat, or would be a different numerical relationship.

* If system didn't matter, then it wouldn't make a difference if you subbed out "fill their lives with danger", "play to find out what happens", and "follow through (with whatever threat the telegraphed obstacle can bring to bear when the dice result, 6-, says you need to make a move)" for "tell an interesting story and ignore the rules/resolution mechanics if they get in the way with that".

* If system didn't matter, then it wouldn't make a difference if the Adventuring Gear system wasn't an abstract, catch-all, consumable for gear/supplies where you tick a box/mark a use (and refill them if you gain some) vs being discretized and was reusable/at-will vs consumable.

* If system didn't matter, then it wouldn't make a difference if you presented a table-facing, 6 wedge Danger Clock titled "The Sorcerer's Gaze" that ticks (a) every new Journey phase, (b) can tick 1 on a 7-9, or (c) can tick 2 on a 6- (or 1 and a minor complication) and when it fills a Danger manifests as a byproduct of "The Sorcerer's Gaze" (rinse repeat until the Sorcerer is defeated). If it was GM-facing only it wouldn't matter. If the machinery that triggered ticking of the Clock was opaque it wouldn't matter. If it was all arbitrarily done by GM feel or whim it wouldn't matter.

---

This is one singular move and the moving parts integrated with it. Perturb a single one and play changes significantly.

This isn't an entire system. Its one, small procedural chunk of play.

Making all of this discrete/modular rather than integrated, making all of this GM-facing rather than table-facing, and giving the GM the authority to ignore results or procedures at their "story-mandate-discretion" doesn't suddenly translate to "system doesn't matter." It robustly (and obviously so) makes the case for "system matters (and incredibly so)."