ThirdWizard
First Post
Run a horror game in any flavor of D&D.
Then run a horror game in Dread.
System matters.
Then run a horror game in Dread.
System matters.
How much does the RPG system actually matter....for player enjoyment?
- Thread starter Gundark
- Start date
TrippyHippy
Hero
I just think that's rubbish. I've played horror games in lots of systems - it's largely irrelevant towards setting a mood - and the 'Voice Of God' approach rarely wins an argument.
No analogy is perfect.
But the point remains: in gaming, the are several independent factors- system, GM skill, playstyle, etc.- that ultimately affect how much fun people have when playing. The results of those variables can vary from person to person, campaign to campaign, and even hour to hour.
To say that any one is immaterial, unimportant or all-controlling is a fallacy.
TrippyHippy
Hero
Imagine you have an enthusiastic group, with a GM who has a clear idea of the story he wishes to involve them in and a strong ability to express his ideas. Then you simply plonk a D6 in the middle of the table and said "get on with it!".
That group is more likely to have a fun evening's entertainment than a group who have got the most elaborately designed game system but no ability or skill or enthusiasm to run it.
That is all.
That group is more likely to have a fun evening's entertainment than a group who have got the most elaborately designed game system but no ability or skill or enthusiasm to run it.
That is all.
Argyle King
Legend
The system is going to determine how I interact with the world and how much of an abstraction my interaction with the system is compared to what's going on in-game. For example, a 6-second D&D round assumes that an archer character does a lot of things without the player stating he's doing them; the default 1-second turns in GURPS don't make as many assumptions. Neither of these approaches are inherently good or bad, but the details of the pudding are going to change some of the flavor.
I am someone who believes flavor and mechanics often have a close relationship, and I also believe that some mechanical decisions are going to change the tone and feel of things during actual play. The original Dragonlance novels were a product of how D&D worked at the time. If those books were written today with a basis in how 4th Edition worked, I fully believe the story would turn out different; there would be parts which are portrayed differently. I'm not implying it would be better or worse; just different; the differences in mechanics and how the characters are able to interact with the world around them would (I believe) change some of the flavor and aspects of the story.
I'm a player who often enjoys doing things like building a castle; leading an army, and various other things. While I've been able to do those things in many games, I've found my experiences in those areas of play while using D&D 3rd Edition to be unsatisfying. A big reason why is because of how levels work. According to the story; according to what was going on in game, having those assets available to me should have been useful. In actual play, that wasn't supported; I could have fought an entire army with my lone character and easily won. I still enjoyed playing the system, but -when I've wanted to play a style of game in which steeds, followers, and other such things are actually useful and actually contribute to the story without breaking the game or gimping my character- I've found that my enjoyment is far greater when playing other games.
Do I agree that a good GM can trump system? Certainly. Do I agree that a motivated group can trump system? Sure. Do I believe system doesn't matter? No; I believe it does matter. There are story types I would prefer to use D&D 4th Edition for over Pathfinder. That doesn't mean I feel one is necessarily better than the other, but it does mean that I believe certain things are better suited for one than the other.
In the case of D&D 4th Edition, I believe one of the biggest downfalls of the system wasn't that it was bad, but that it was marketed with the "ze game will remain ze same" mantra. Why I was frustrated with the system early in its life is because I tried to run and play the game ze same as I had run and played the previous edition, but it wasn't the same. Differences in how things worked required me to change my methods of playing from the player side and many of my methods of encounter and world building from the GM side. Maybe this isn't true for others, but it certainly was for me.
If I were attempting to run something based on Game of Thrones (and assuming I didn't use the rpg designed for it for some reason,) I don't feel D&D or Pathfinder would handle it very well. I could possibly see an E6 Pathfinder setup handling it well enough that I could live with it. With the real-ish nature of combat in the books and the show, I'd vastly prefer a system in which HP wasn't as abstract as it tends to be in D&D, and I'd also vastly prefer a system with active defenses. To me, that would suit the style better.
I am someone who believes flavor and mechanics often have a close relationship, and I also believe that some mechanical decisions are going to change the tone and feel of things during actual play. The original Dragonlance novels were a product of how D&D worked at the time. If those books were written today with a basis in how 4th Edition worked, I fully believe the story would turn out different; there would be parts which are portrayed differently. I'm not implying it would be better or worse; just different; the differences in mechanics and how the characters are able to interact with the world around them would (I believe) change some of the flavor and aspects of the story.
I'm a player who often enjoys doing things like building a castle; leading an army, and various other things. While I've been able to do those things in many games, I've found my experiences in those areas of play while using D&D 3rd Edition to be unsatisfying. A big reason why is because of how levels work. According to the story; according to what was going on in game, having those assets available to me should have been useful. In actual play, that wasn't supported; I could have fought an entire army with my lone character and easily won. I still enjoyed playing the system, but -when I've wanted to play a style of game in which steeds, followers, and other such things are actually useful and actually contribute to the story without breaking the game or gimping my character- I've found that my enjoyment is far greater when playing other games.
Do I agree that a good GM can trump system? Certainly. Do I agree that a motivated group can trump system? Sure. Do I believe system doesn't matter? No; I believe it does matter. There are story types I would prefer to use D&D 4th Edition for over Pathfinder. That doesn't mean I feel one is necessarily better than the other, but it does mean that I believe certain things are better suited for one than the other.
In the case of D&D 4th Edition, I believe one of the biggest downfalls of the system wasn't that it was bad, but that it was marketed with the "ze game will remain ze same" mantra. Why I was frustrated with the system early in its life is because I tried to run and play the game ze same as I had run and played the previous edition, but it wasn't the same. Differences in how things worked required me to change my methods of playing from the player side and many of my methods of encounter and world building from the GM side. Maybe this isn't true for others, but it certainly was for me.
If I were attempting to run something based on Game of Thrones (and assuming I didn't use the rpg designed for it for some reason,) I don't feel D&D or Pathfinder would handle it very well. I could possibly see an E6 Pathfinder setup handling it well enough that I could live with it. With the real-ish nature of combat in the books and the show, I'd vastly prefer a system in which HP wasn't as abstract as it tends to be in D&D, and I'd also vastly prefer a system with active defenses. To me, that would suit the style better.
Mishihari Lord
First Post
Now imagine your enthusiastic group etcetera with a single D6 and imagine an identical enthusiastic group with a system that supports their preferred playstyle. I'm quite sure that the latter group would be better off.
TrippyHippy
Hero
A lot of the time, I'm not sure what 'preferred playstyle' actually means. I know there has been a lot of game theory talk over the years, but my experience is that regardless of what system you put in front of a group, their natural group dynamics tends to dictate the manner in which they end up playing the game. They only sure way to change the playing habits of the group is to change that interactive dynamic - ie change the game-master, bring in new players etc.
Game preference is simply that - a preference - and there is no rule-set that can force a group to become more creative, or more witty, or more daring or more thoughtful. It comes from the people playing the game.
ThirdWizard
First Post
On playstyle.
Dungeon World has a very free flowing game. It has no initiative, and the GM doesn't make any rolls (except maybe damage). You move from person to person based on what's going on, so you can focus on one or two people. Failing a roll means you get XP, so there's a mechanical incentive to not always do what you're best at. The central conceit of Dungeon World is that how you describe something determines what happens and how it happens, and the players decide how to describe things.
Fate is more structured. Like D&D it has initiative and skills. But, it also has aspects that are phrases describing the character. The PCs can use the fiction to guide how to use these aspects, creating problems with them or enhancements with them, both of which are desired based on mechanical feedback in the system. How to use aspects isn't defined, so you make up what happens as you go. This requires descriptive phrasing to make use of aspects.
Dread is a game where success and failure is determined simply by pulling from a Jenga tower. If the tower doesn't fall, then you succeed. If it falls, you die. Attempting to do something in Dread is a deadly prospect. Do you make the attempt or do you back down? How shaky do you get the tower? When is it worth it to pull? Character generation is also different than usual. It uses leading questions to define your character, instead of stats or powers.
Fiasco is an RPG where your character is defined purely based on your relationship to other characters. It plays out in scenes between two characters at a time, and other players vote on who came out ahead in each scene. Then at the end of the game, the characters' epilogues are determined by how well the players role played with each other.
Take two groups who have never met. They each play one session of each of these RPGs. After they come together, there will be similarities that they'll find about how they played and what they took away from each system. These commonalities involve the playstyle of the systems. For example, regardless of how much a group likes to narrate their games in detail, they have to in Dungeon World. In FATE they're all going to like it when bad things happen to them, even if they normally wouldn't. In Dread, they'll all know that tenseness of attempting something, even the most reckless of players. And, in Fiasco they'll all remember how the story played out in crazy unexpected ways, even if they normally just enjoy dungeon crawls.
So, the system can heavily influence gameplay. Very very heavily.
Dungeon World has a very free flowing game. It has no initiative, and the GM doesn't make any rolls (except maybe damage). You move from person to person based on what's going on, so you can focus on one or two people. Failing a roll means you get XP, so there's a mechanical incentive to not always do what you're best at. The central conceit of Dungeon World is that how you describe something determines what happens and how it happens, and the players decide how to describe things.
Fate is more structured. Like D&D it has initiative and skills. But, it also has aspects that are phrases describing the character. The PCs can use the fiction to guide how to use these aspects, creating problems with them or enhancements with them, both of which are desired based on mechanical feedback in the system. How to use aspects isn't defined, so you make up what happens as you go. This requires descriptive phrasing to make use of aspects.
Dread is a game where success and failure is determined simply by pulling from a Jenga tower. If the tower doesn't fall, then you succeed. If it falls, you die. Attempting to do something in Dread is a deadly prospect. Do you make the attempt or do you back down? How shaky do you get the tower? When is it worth it to pull? Character generation is also different than usual. It uses leading questions to define your character, instead of stats or powers.
Fiasco is an RPG where your character is defined purely based on your relationship to other characters. It plays out in scenes between two characters at a time, and other players vote on who came out ahead in each scene. Then at the end of the game, the characters' epilogues are determined by how well the players role played with each other.
Take two groups who have never met. They each play one session of each of these RPGs. After they come together, there will be similarities that they'll find about how they played and what they took away from each system. These commonalities involve the playstyle of the systems. For example, regardless of how much a group likes to narrate their games in detail, they have to in Dungeon World. In FATE they're all going to like it when bad things happen to them, even if they normally wouldn't. In Dread, they'll all know that tenseness of attempting something, even the most reckless of players. And, in Fiasco they'll all remember how the story played out in crazy unexpected ways, even if they normally just enjoy dungeon crawls.
So, the system can heavily influence gameplay. Very very heavily.
Not true. My group approaches D&D very differently than they approach Teenagers from Outer Space or even a superheroic CHAMPIONS game. They are certainly approaching the Conspiracy-X inspired game very differently than my previous D&D 3.5 game.
I did have one period where the players got somewhat 'stuck' in a rut. Many years ago, I grew tired of the player always taking insane risks and always trying to go toe to toe with things obviously portrayed as immediately beyond them regardless of genre of the game. It led to a somewhat revolving door of new characters and a loss of campaign continuity in genres where such change didn't fit well.
I told the group the next game was a limited-run investigative horror game. The twist of the campaign was each player only had their original character. No one could bring in any type of replacement for the length of the campaign. The players adapted a slightly more cautious approach. After the first death, the players changed their play style much more. No one else died through the course of the run.
I find the key is the DM communicating the genre expectations and choosing a system that supports rather than fights that choice. A proper system naturally guides player choices to those appropriate for the type of game desired -- the rule set makes obvious what behaviours get rewarded, the general level of difficulty expected for various tasks, what type of resources are likely available, and which behaviours generate neutral or worse consequences. Choosing a rule set that matches table expectations for the campaign makes things operate much more smoothly.
TrippyHippy
Hero
People's experiences may differ, but I have played Dungeon World for example, and although the rule set was a neat and tidy system, I couldn't see what the fuss was about at all. We were just playing D&D with different dice and that was the entire difference in terms of our output.
In terms of how players 'approach' a game, a lot of it is so much attributable to individual's mood or confidence in particular settings, genres or systems. If you say - "OK we are going to play a comedy game" and then start cracking jokes (good ones!) it's a whole lot easier to get into the mindset to play. Game books are normally written and illustrated to evoke a particular mood - the actual mechanics of play don't actually make a whole lot of difference, although they may fascinate or irritate some gamers in equal measure.
In terms of how players 'approach' a game, a lot of it is so much attributable to individual's mood or confidence in particular settings, genres or systems. If you say - "OK we are going to play a comedy game" and then start cracking jokes (good ones!) it's a whole lot easier to get into the mindset to play. Game books are normally written and illustrated to evoke a particular mood - the actual mechanics of play don't actually make a whole lot of difference, although they may fascinate or irritate some gamers in equal measure.
