-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
How much does the RPG system actually matter....for player enjoyment?
- Thread starter Gundark
- Start date
ThirdWizard
First Post
I have to agree with this train of thought.
It seems to come down to genre and genre emulation more than the system itself in most cases. The system might not matter in a vacuum, but the system's ability to emulate the genre the game takes is incredibly important. A system that works for a given genre will make a better game. If the fiction of the game doesn't flow, then its like watching a movie where the special effects are incredibly transparent - without the ability for that to be so bad that its funny.
As an extension, once you've played a few games that are really good at their genre, other games that aren't start to look clunky or not as appealing. As an example, if somebody wants to play a noir murder mystery, I'm going to be comparing the system to GUMSHOE in my head and it better stand up. If it doesn't, it just won't feel right.
And, then, of course some people just don't like some genres. A friend of mine doesn't like Star Trek, so no Star Trek games for us. It doesn't matter how well the system plays out a "great" game; he'll not enjoy it because he just doesn't like Star Trek.
Gundark
Explorer
I agree there is something to be said for finding the right game to fit the genre/setting/. I chose to run an Iron Kindoms game using the actual rules (as opposed to Savage Worlds) because even thought the IKRPG kinds gets a "meh" from me it fits better than Savage Worlds which would require some hand waving to do.
Yet, is your fun at the end of the session diminished in a significant way because d20 modern was chosen over Gumshoe? How much does it actually matter?
The flip side of the coin is that my friend refuses to play Shadowrun in any other system. It just would be the same...to each his own I suppose.
ThirdWizard
First Post
The flow of the game could be quite different. For instance, Gumshoe has rules to keep you from getting into an investigative slump where you miss too many clues and the pacing slows down. d20 Modern would be a better game for a more Die Hard type game as opposed to Sherlock Holmes, IMO. So, use the tool to fit what you want. Neither is necessarily a worse or better system, but they have mechanics that emphasize different aspects of play.
Which, in turn, I suppose, means that if your group loves playing through Die Hard like games, but despises investigative games, then they'll think d20 Modern is a better game system than Gumshoe. And vice versa.
Of course, there's always the possibility that a group's tastes have been influenced by what they play. Perhaps for example, they don't like horror because they've only played it in d20 Modern, which doesn't implement it very well, but they extrapolate from that that an RPG can't do horror, so they never try Dread, creating circular reasoning.
This is why I think its good to have knowledge of a breadth of games, so that you can pick the game to match the setting you're after.
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
M&M's answer to the rapid-fire punch is just to buy a stronger single attack power and say that it's dozens of blows falling in an instant. I don't know if the idea was specifically inspired by Northstar from Alpha Flight, but that's the first time I specifically encountere the idea. Alternatively, buy the area extra to simulate hitting a lot of different targets at once. I'd do the same, pretty much in Champions so I'm not sure why you didn't hit on that for M&M.
I'm a HEROphile myself as well.
Hitting multiple targets with an AoE punch was easily figured out, but merely adding damage to the single attack compared to HERO and other systems in which Autofire attacks are handled as (more or less) a bunch of attacks didn't hit the sweet spot of expectations for either the PC's player or myself as GM. Nor did that mechanic appeal to the guy playing a gadgeteer gunsmith, who was planning on eventually adding Autofire to his weapon of choice.
We understood that was how the game did things, but it was disappointing to all for whom it mattered. Everyone wanted the psychic, auditory and tactile joy of multiple dice rolls.
Hitting multiple targets with an AoE punch was easily figured out, but merely adding damage to the single attack compared to HERO and other systems in which Autofire attacks are handled as (more or less) a bunch of attacks didn't hit the sweet spot of expectations for either the PC's player or myself as GM. Nor did that mechanic appeal to the guy playing a gadgeteer gunsmith, who was planning on eventually adding Autofire to his weapon of choice.
We understood that was how the game did things, but it was disappointing to all for whom it mattered. Everyone wanted the psychic, auditory and tactile joy of multiple dice rolls.
Last edited:
TrippyHippy
Hero
Nothing beats a good GM who can describe scenarios enthusiastically, adjudicate fairly and swiftly, and understand the systems of his/her chosen system comprehensively.
Although there was a big thing over the last decade or so about "system matters", I believe that most of this boils down to personal preference. There are some bad systems for games that don't work very well - and to that degree system does matter as it hampers all those aspects of GMing outlined above. Some systems can aid the GM, essentially by levying the responsibility of narrating out to the players (and generally, a GM needs the support of good players to be effective anyway) and that is all well and good. However, I think it's a myth to state that a game's system dictates how well a game will run.
It all comes down to the participants - which is why some of the supposedly weaker game systems out there have still garnered great gameplay over the years.
Although there was a big thing over the last decade or so about "system matters", I believe that most of this boils down to personal preference. There are some bad systems for games that don't work very well - and to that degree system does matter as it hampers all those aspects of GMing outlined above. Some systems can aid the GM, essentially by levying the responsibility of narrating out to the players (and generally, a GM needs the support of good players to be effective anyway) and that is all well and good. However, I think it's a myth to state that a game's system dictates how well a game will run.
It all comes down to the participants - which is why some of the supposedly weaker game systems out there have still garnered great gameplay over the years.
Last edited:
A good GM has the potential to override a bad system, just like a bad GM can override a good one. But generally speaking, its still better for all to start with a good foundational system regardless of the GM's skills.
With the equalizer on a sound system, you can control bass and treble independently- some even beak down your sound into a large number of independently controllable ranges.
Similarly, system quality and GM skill (and other factors) vary independently to create your gaming experience.
Last edited:
Li Shenron
Legend
My opinion is that the most important thing in order to have fun is the playstyle rather than the rules strictly, but it's quite clear that the rules can support one playstyle well well and get in the way of another playstyle instead.
A playstyle is not so easy to define, because it's made up by a myriad of elements, e.g.: your expectations about character death, the level of realism provided, not breaking suspension of disbelief, the amount of math calculations required to resolve an action, complexity (e.g. the amount of stuff about your character you have to keep in mind at all time), open-endedness (i.e. the balance between what you want your character to do and what the rules will tell you to do instead) and many more.
I also agree with those who say that a rules system tends to matter more in terms of going against your playstyle rather than supporting it.
The DM has limited power to make a system work better, for at least two reasons: (1) normally a system is designed as a whole, every house rule has a chance of causing unwanted consequence requiring even more house rules; (2) every player effectively has different preferences, so making the game fit all of them can be impossible.
Players should responsibly accept that not every one of their preferences can always be granted, and it's best for a player to look at the bigger picture and try not to be bothered by minor "flaws" of the system. It helps a lot to remember yourself, that if you can't have all your pet peeves satisfied in this campaign, there is always the possibility of playing another campaign later.
Then of course, it's a matter of gathering good info about that "bigger picture" of each rules systems. What was the purpose behind system XYZ? Is the system widely considered to succeed at that purpose?
TrippyHippy
Hero
I think the analogy is flawed because ultimately you are talking about how people interact with each other, rather than the mechanics of a machine.
