How much does the RPG system actually matter....for player enjoyment?

[howandwhy99]

A game system is akin to notation for music and lyrics. Not every song or system is going to be enjoyable to every person at any given moment. But rhythms and melodies do matter. Music affects how we dance. The rules of a game matter as they affect how players play. Whether the playing is fun to them is partly the player and partly the game ...and maybe even some other peripherals that aren't part of the game, but are influencing the people involved.

Without any ability to act within a ruleset we have no means to gain proficiency with it. Storygames are considered the easiest as they only require awareness to self express, but this is almost always accompanied by pre-learned pattern expression not included in the game rules. For example: shared language, social cues, cultural similarities, and so on. These are the most open of role playing games, but also the least game-like and absent of the majority of game features. For instance: strategy, forethought, memory testing, spatial awareness, and other core game traits. If you boot up some gaming software and it's an artistic design or word processing program, then you probably think of games as stories. If your capacity for fun is limited to storytelling, than you definitely want RPG systems that deal with delivering the desired modes found in literary and critical theory.

Older role playing games focused on putting game elements into the expressions of one person, the DM. As with most gameplay these games focus players into pattern recognition and behaviors contained within the rules and as explored in game theory and other forms of social mathematics. These hidden rules games are similar to the pattern expressions by players in storygames, but it is not the game that is incidental to the storytelling, but the storytelling that is incidental to the game play. It is difficulty. By any account the DM must learn before game sessions an entire code of expressions to relate during play so the the players can engage in deciphering and strategizing.

Both of these approaches are radically different just as an improv jam session and a symphony adjusting to a new conductor satisfy in very different ways. The important take away is: Both Satisfy. And these two, probably the most predominant schools of game play in RPGs today, still are hardly the only manners in which to play games.

So, yeah, I say systems do matter for players' enjoyment. And the same player can even enjoy a variety of different systems. But the person has to be open to what the system is delivering. Plus, it helps that is what the player is actually looking for.

I also believe their are game system which are inherently harmful to people and their enjoyment shouldn't matter at all to the ethics of playing them. Russian Roulette isn't to be tried the first time.

 

[Umbran]

Well, first off, role playing games are not therapy.

I'm a therapist. I work with clients with wide variety of mental health and addictions issues. I'm also influenced quite heavily by Scott D. Miller, one of his ideas which appears to be backed up by increasing research is that the actual counselling technique matters very little in whether or not the client gets better.

...

It is important that the therapist has a technique that he/she uses, and there are ones that are better/worse than others, but overall very little difference.

The statements "technique does not matter" and "there are ones that are better/worse than others" are in direct conflict with one another. But, that's really a question of therapy, not RPGs.

Well what does this mean for RPGs? How much does system matter for the players to enjoy themselves?

I think, for RPGs, the answers to that will vary a great deal.

For myself, before I heard of FATAL, I had a saying - there is no system so crappy that a good set of players can't have fun with it, and no system so good that a bad set of players cannot ruin it. I must now admit that there may be the occasional exception, but I find it still largely holds. This doesn't mean that system doesn't matter, but that a good result can be had with almost any system - some systems might require a bit more work to get that result.

That same group also fractured significantly over 4Ed D&D with a fairly good DM. It's mechanics were the major reason why some of the players in the group wouldn't even design a PC for the campaign.

Okay, so, there's this thing - I cannot say it applies to any particular person that I don't know, but we know that it does happen: the decision to like a thing is made on an emotional level, and the reasons are tacked on later. We (meaning humans in general) may not even realize this is happening - that we make a decision and then rationalize reasons, and then come to believe the rationalizations are the reasons, when they are not.

I think this happens more frequently than we like to admit with games and gamers. We like to think we are rational ("Of course *MY* reasons for accepting or rejecting, for liking or disliking, are always well founded!") but this flies in the face of the empirically demonstrable fact that humans frequently aren't. It isn't reasonable to expect that gamers are somehow stunningly more rational than the rest of our species. So, *someone* is probably fibbing to themselves...

 

[Nagol]

I find it matters a great deal. The game system offers an implied contract about what situations will be faced by the players' avatars and what actions are expected from those avatars in response. I typically tailor the chosen game system to match the tone, genre, and expectations for play for any campaign I start.

I've changed systems mid-campaign more than a few times over the decades and have found the implications of the system at the table matters. Each system has a differerent set of expectations, "sweet spot" zones, and genre assumptions. The switch worked well when the game system came more in line with the play group's preferences and expectations and worked poorly when the system fought with preferred styles or invalidated how the players saw their characters.

Most of the switches stay within the same game "family", but a few were across games because I or the table had grown disenchanted with the original system but wanted to continue with the characters/situation.


Games where I've swapped the system at the table, but kept all the players/characters:
AD&D 1e --> 2e --> 1e
D&D 3 --> 3.5
Runequest 3 --> Fantasy Hero --> Runequest 2
Ars Magica 2 --> Ars Magica 3 --> Ars Magica 4
Champions 2 --> Champions 3 --> Champions 3 + lots of supplements --> Champions 4
Top Secret --> Espionage! --> Danger International
Vampire the Masquerade --> Champions 4

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Okay, so, there's this thing - I cannot say it applies to any particular person that I don't know, but we know that it does happen: the decision to like a thing is made on an emotional level, and the reasons are tacked on later. We (meaning humans in general) may not even realize this is happening - that we make a decision and then rationalize reasons, and then come to believe the rationalizations are the reasons, when they are not.

I think this happens more frequently than we like to admit with games and gamers. We like to think we are rational ("Of course *MY* reasons for accepting or rejecting, for liking or disliking, are always well founded!") but this flies in the face of the empirically demonstrable fact that humans frequently aren't. It isn't reasonable to expect that gamers are somehow stunningly more rational than the rest of our species. So, *someone* is probably fibbing to themselves...

While I agree that humans don't always follow their rational side first, in these guys cases, it really was about mechanics.

The guys in question are all veteran gamers, and pretty hardcore. One is even a pro game designer. As but one example, right out of the box (as it were) several were griping about 4Ed's numerous and ephemeral bonuses- how tracking them could become tedious, and better suited for a computer game.

...an assessment I found myself sharing despite enjoying playing 4Ed as a player.

4Ed's lack of iterative attacks- just like with M&M- was also a mechanical turn-off for many, including those who did play.

So while the reaction was emotional, it was entirely within the spectrum of past behavior; consistent and predictable.

 

[Gundark]

I disagree very greatly with both parts of your post. I was required to seek counseling after returning from combat tours with the military. I believe there was a great deal of difference made by the techniques used among the people I had to see. Even though they were asking the same questions, the results -from my perspective- was that it was usually a complete waste of my time to be there. However, there were two who come to mind which -due to the fact they used different techniques- actually made me feel as though I got something out of the experience. There's also one which comes to mind which felt like such a waste of time that it was actually aggravating... needless to say, having someone get up and walk out to get a cup of coffee during a session doesn't exactly make you feel that they really care about their job.

I'm glad that you were able to find someone who used a technique that was helpful for you and you were able to connect with that person. I'm not making any sort of comment on you or your experience, it sounds like the journey was very meaningful for you.

Speaking from my experience I have had the pleasure of working with people who stated that they had sought out counselling before and it didn't seem to useful for them, as I got to know them better it became apparent that I was using a very similar modality yet the client stated that they were improving. i can honestly say that I don't think it had much to do with technique. I think it had more to do with it being a different time of their life and the fact that we seemed to "click" as far as the relationship went than any sort of specific intervention.

I will say (I did briefly mention in the OP) that some presenting issues do seem to require specific interventions

I'm also someone who plays and runs tabletop games (obviously, or I wouldn't be on Enworld.) While I do agree that the DM can be a huge factor, and I can honestly say I have enjoyed games I normally hate due to a really good DM, I still do believe system matters -both as a player and as a DM myself. I believe that because there are times when -as a storyteller- I felt that the system and the fundamental ideals that the mechanical aspects of a system were built upon got in the way of telling the story I wanted to tell and running the type of game I wanted to run. I also believe that because -as a player- the mechanical aspects of a game and how those aspects interact with story can (and very often do) change how I perceive the in-game world and (more importantly) how my character views the world around him changes. The two games I've played the most are D&D 4th Edition and GURPS 4th Edition, and the mechanics of those two games are drastically different, and even though I can run the same stories in both games, those stories -even the same stories- do feel different both from the player point of view and the DM point of view. In particular, the difference between having active defense and static defenses is noticeable; likewise, the differences in how the two systems handle magic greatly change things not only from a mechanical point of view, but also in how things feel in play.

Fair enough. I think we can agree that a good/bad DM can make all the difference in the world assuming there is a reasonable rpg available being played (ie. not FATAL) I was talking to my friend about this topic and he contended that it depends on why we approach the table and why we play in the first place. I play RPGs to tell an interesting story and have fun. Mechanics matter of course (I don't think I ever said they didn't), it's just for me at the end of the game I can usually say that I had fun regardless of whether we played d20, or Savage Worlds or the One Ring.

I approach board games in a very different manner. In this context game mechanics matter!! There is a sense of great satisfaction I get at playing various strategies and seeing them work within the framework of the game being played. For my friend he plays RPGs for the same reasons, also for how well they emulate "reality" in the context of the setting.

Well, first off, role playing games are not therapy

Not sure how to respond to this, wasn't trying to state that therapy is on the same level of rpgs (or visa versa). They are two different things. What I was drawing a link between was more along the lines of that relationships matter, they matter in therapy and they matter with a group of people who are sitting down to play a game. In that instance there actually is a lot of similarities between therapy (especially group therapy) and playing rpgs

The statements "technique does not matter" and "there are ones that are better/worse than others" are in direct conflict with one another. But, that's really a question of therapy, not RPGs.

The idea is that amongst accepted forms of therapy there isn't a whole amount of difference. Granted there are researchers and therapists that would disagree with this. There are some "therapists" out there that do pretty unethical things or use interventions that are not backed by research. I would agrue that these are not as good as interventions where research has been done and that we can say with degree of certainty that "yup this seems to work".

For myself, before I heard of FATAL, I had a saying - there is no system so crappy that a good set of players can't have fun with it, and no system so good that a bad set of players cannot ruin it. I must now admit that there may be the occasional exception, but I find it still largely holds. This doesn't mean that system doesn't matter, but that a good result can be had with almost any system - some systems might require a bit more work to get that result. .

Yeah I mentioned early on that FATAL and the mentioned racist rpg (don't know the name) where more than likely exceptions to the rule. Sets of rules that are blatantly (or covertly) racist/sexist/misogynistic or derogatory and make me feel icky to even read probably are exempt from my question of "how much do rules matter?"

Okay, so, there's this thing - I cannot say it applies to any particular person that I don't know, but we know that it does happen: the decision to like a thing is made on an emotional level, and the reasons are tacked on later. We (meaning humans in general) may not even realize this is happening - that we make a decision and then rationalize reasons, and then come to believe the rationalizations are the reasons, when they are not.

I think this happens more frequently than we like to admit with games and gamers. We like to think we are rational ("Of course *MY* reasons for accepting or rejecting, for liking or disliking, are always well founded!") but this flies in the face of the empirically demonstrable fact that humans frequently aren't. It isn't reasonable to expect that gamers are somehow stunningly more rational than the rest of our species. So, *someone* is probably fibbing to themselves...

I would agree

 

[Argyle King]

Originally, I had a longer response, but I think I can sum up what I was trying to say with something shorter.

I certainly agree that story is more important to me. I likewise agree that a good DM can make a big difference -as can a bad one.

With all that being said, the way a game handles mechanics can highlight or be at odds with certain aspects of the story. I recently started playing Dragon Age, and I'm highly enjoying it, but the first set didn't include anything which supported the idea of using magic being dangerous. Set 2 introduced the magical mishap table, and while it's a very small part of the rules, it is something which (I feel) greatly increases the connection between fluff and mechanics. On the other hand, the game's definition of adjacent is somewhat at odds with my way of thinking when it comes to melee and combat formations... not enough to disrupt my enjoyment of the game, but I'd find it somewhat jarring to use the system as is for certain styles of story because of it. (On a side note, I'd at some point like to discuss that aspect of the game with someone more experienced with the system. I'm not convinced the way my group is running it is entirely accurate.)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yeah I mentioned early on that FATAL and the mentioned racist rpg (don't know the name) where more than likely exceptions to the rule.

RaHoWa RPG- I mentioned it upthread, but your brain is probably trying to save you.

 

[Umbran]

While I agree that humans don't always follow their rational side first, in these guys cases, it really was about mechanics.

Which is fine. As I said, I cannot make any statements about people I don't know.

However, it is still relevant for the topic - sometimes it isn't the rules that matter, but the player's emotional engagement with the rules (positive or negative) that makes the difference. It will *look* like it is the rules that matter, they will say that it is the rules that matter. But really, there's something else involved. Sometimes (not always, but sometimes) this can be an aid to the GM - if you can suss out the player's emotional stance, you can work with it, rather than against it.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Which is fine. As I said, I cannot make any statements about people I don't know.

However, it is still relevant for the topic - sometimes it isn't the rules that matter, but the player's emotional engagement with the rules (positive or negative) that makes the difference. It will *look* like it is the rules that matter, they will say that it is the rules that matter. But really, there's something else involved. Sometimes (not always, but sometimes) this can be an aid to the GM - if you can suss out the player's emotional stance, you can work with it, rather than against it.

Agreed 100%.

...And sometimes that means that you don't want to use "X"RPG.

 

[Wycen]

Recent personal experience tells me the system matters. Or at least expectations and/or system knowledge.

But let me back up a bit. A few years ago a friend and I were talking about not liking a particular version of the worlds most popular role playing game. It was something we could agree on and bad mouth. Then, later I discovered that in fact my friend didn't really like any of the more recent incarnations of this game, or perhaps any game with levels, classes, and expectations of accumulating "stuff". He prefers indie games with heavy role play, but that's another story. For a brief time, we managed to play Pathfinder together, but factors out of our control ended the game (well, we ended the game because we didn't like one of the players, but we didn't know we wouldn't like one of the players).

While playing with that group I was also playing Pathfinder with other groups. When I joined one of these groups, I knew they had played other d20 games and had enjoyed them, though also expected a couple things might annoy me, but figured I'd cross that bridge when I came to it.

It started out with little rules being ignored or changed. But as the game progressed and we fought larger and tougher monsters, it became obvious that either the DM did not know the rules or had house rules that I hadn't been informed of. Finally, after the climactic battle after a year of playing, I had to talk to the DM about why the monsters did not fight well. I'm talking about monsters larger than Medium size never using their reach and not taking attacks of opportunity among the glaring, "why doesn't anyone else at the table see this?" type of stuff. That conversation convinced me the DM didn't know the rules and didn't know he didn't know the rules.

At that point I wasn't really having fun anymore because my knowledge of the rules pre-informed my decisions on valid tactics. I should also acknowledge that other issues related to the DM-game dynamic were happening, so this issue of the rules isn't the sole factor, but in any event, I dropped the game. I was the only one not having fun, so rather than fight an uphill battle with rules, and player expectations, I bowed out.