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

[Gundark]

[MENTION=58416]Johnny3D3D[/MENTION] big post. I am not disagreeing with what you said, just wondering if at the end of the session if you are the player would your overall fun ( if you could measure that) be any different in a significant way?
There are sets of rules that fit certain genres better, no argument here, but as a player at the end of a session what matters more, the good company? The story the group told? Or that you played rules x? Keeping other factors equal (good group and interesting campaign) how much do the rules play a part in the amount of fun you had?

 

[Lwaxy]

What's the difference?

 

[Argyle King]

@Johnny3D3D big post. I am not disagreeing with what you said, just wondering if at the end of the session if you are the player would your overall fun ( if you could measure that) be any different in a significant way?
There are sets of rules that fit certain genres better, no argument here, but as a player at the end of a session what matters more, the good company? The story the group told? Or that you played rules x? Keeping other factors equal (good group and interesting campaign) how much do the rules play a part in the amount of fun you had?

That's a question which I have an answer for, but it's difficult to put into words without it sounding as though I'm bashing a system. I'll try though.

First, I'll again say that I agree that a great GM can make me overlook problems I have with a system. Also, at the end of the day, I get together to spend time with my friends and have fun, so that doesn't necessarily change with system. However, being able to overlook something doesn't mean I'm always able to completely ignore it.

For example, I believe that the way levels work in D&D tends to reward and support certain pillars of play more than others. As I am someone who enjoys exploring pillars of play which D&D doesn't often do a good job of supporting, I find myself missing the ability to engage those pillars in a way which I find satisfactory. An example of that which usually comes to mind is trying to have interests for my character which aren't directly combat related like building a castle or having an army. Realizing that -by the mechanics of 3rd Edition- one enemy character of my level could single-handedly destroy my entire army is a bit of a buzzkill and often makes trying to explore things which invest my character in the campaign world feel like a waste of time rather than a rewarding experience. Up until a certain level D&D works adequately enough for the style of fantasy I'd prefer, but then it quickly goes in a different direction. As such, yes, the mechanics would lessen the amount of fun I'd have. That doesn't mean I wouldn't have fun at all, but it's a very real possibility that the mechanical choices of the game would be a reason why I wouldn't have as much fun as I may have had with a different system.

Another easy example which comes to mind when thinking about D&D is wanting to play the classic archetype of the mounted knight. Because of similar problems to what I mentioned with wanting to have an army and such things, a mount usually does not keep pace with me. It doesn't take long for the warhorse I had at level 1 to become a liability instead of an asset. The best I can hope for is to play a paladin or a druid with an animal companion choice that I can ride. There are a lot of different systems in which this is not the case. In many of the ones which don't have D&D style levels and classes, my mount would remain relevant. A character type I'd very much like to play -and one which is a classic trope- is more difficult to do in D&D than it would be in a different system.

I'm most familiar with 3rd Edition and 4th Edition, so those are the two editions of D&D I'm thinking of in these examples. Thus far, my thoughts have been slanted more toward 3rd. One of the things that bothers me about 4th is that I feel I need to look at the game from a different perspective than I'd prefer to. When it comes to tactics and choices inside the game world, there are a lot of things I would do if I were facing the situation that would in no way make sense for me to do if I were someone living in a world that worked like 4th Edition. That doesn't mean I can't have fun with the game; I have and do, but it has some areas which work in a manner different from how my mind works. I have a great deal of fun if I go into it with a more casual attitude and think more in terms of when I should play a card (use a power,) but sometimes it's more difficult for me to... honestly, I'm not even sure how to describe it. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that things that are good tactics in 4th would (in my mind) most likely get you killed if trying them in just about any other arena; including other rpgs and how I envision something playing out if I were actually faced with it. Likewise, things which I feel would be good to do given a situation often don't make any sense at all to do given the context of D&D 4th Edition. Because there is a conflict of thought and ideology there, there are times when I find I'm hampered in my ability to connect with the character and fully emerse myself in the world the character is in. I still roleplay; I can still highly enjoy the game, but there's a barrier there created by the system which is difficult for me to push beyond. That doesn't mean I can't have fun with the game, but, as with other things I've mention, there are aspects of play I want to explore which I find I'm lesser able to explore because of the system, and that does have an impact on how much overall fun I'm having. Sometimes I highly enjoy 4E as a game while simultaneously not enjoying it so much as a rpg. That's weird to try to explain, but that's how it is for me.

 

[Jhaelen]

I think one of the best arguments for the rules not really being important for enjoying a rpg is that you can enjoy it without knowing any rules.

Well, I don't know how other groups are doing it, but when I'm the GM all a player has to do is to tell me what she wants her pc to do. Then I'll tell her how to do it in the ruleset we happen to use. The system doesn't matter because roleplaying works regardless of the system.
This is especially true for newcomers, of course. More experienced players tend to be more interested in knowing how everything works and get more enjoyment out of a game if they understand the intricacies of the system.

Looking over the counter-arguments I see mainly two things:
1) Well, maybe you enjoyed playing X, but you would certainly have enjoyed it even more if you'd played Y!

This may well be true but doesn't invalidate that you enjoyed playing X

2) After playing Y, I've found that I enjoy it so much, that I'll refuse to play any other system.

Well, I'd lie if I said I didn't have preferences among the plethora of systems available. I'll also bicker and try to convince a potential GM to use my preferred system over others. But in the end I've not forgotten that the point of playing an rpg is after all the roleplaying. As long as the rules don't get in the way of that, I'll be able to enjoy the game.

I'd say that anyone who cannot enjoy a game because it doesn't use his preferred rule set has lost sight of what's important in a rpg.

 

[Argyle King]

I think one of the best arguments for the rules not really being important for enjoying a rpg is that you can enjoy it without knowing any rules.

Well, I don't know how other groups are doing it, but when I'm the GM all a player has to do is to tell me what she wants her pc to do. Then I'll tell her how to do it in the ruleset we happen to use. The system doesn't matter because roleplaying works regardless of the system.
This is especially true for newcomers, of course. More experienced players tend to be more interested in knowing how everything works and get more enjoyment out of a game if they understand the intricacies of the system.

Looking over the counter-arguments I see mainly two things:
1) Well, maybe you enjoyed playing X, but you would certainly have enjoyed it even more if you'd played Y!

This may well be true but doesn't invalidate that you enjoyed playing X

2) After playing Y, I've found that I enjoy it so much, that I'll refuse to play any other system.

Well, I'd lie if I said I didn't have preferences among the plethora of systems available. I'll also bicker and try to convince a potential GM to use my preferred system over others. But in the end I've not forgotten that the point of playing an rpg is after all the roleplaying. As long as the rules don't get in the way of that, I'll be able to enjoy the game.

I'd say that anyone who cannot enjoy a game because it doesn't use his preferred rule set has lost sight of what's important in a rpg.

Certainly this is possible. However, would you say that characters in all systems interact with the world they live in in the same way? A player can tell you what they want to do, but what an action actually does within the context of the game world can and often does change dramatically depending upon system. Compare fall damage between D&D 4th Edition and GURPS 4th Edition; what constitutes reasonable risk when considering jumping over a chasm changes because of how characters in the two systems interact with the world around them. In D&D 4E, I'd probably laugh off the bit of damage taken from the fall; in GURPS 4E it's possible that I'd have a crippled leg. If I'm mentally trained to expect the former result, it's going to be quite a shock when I tell you I want to jump over something, fail, and end up with the latter result.

For me, that is part of where the difference (and my preferences) come from. Sure, I can still enjoy a rpg session in a game I'm not fond of. I'd never dispute that. However, to some extent, certain editions of D&D tread into a territory which is outside of what I expect in a rpg. As I briefly touched on with my previous post, there have been times when I've highly enjoyed a system as a game, but that same game wasn't fulfilling my desires when it came to wanting to play rpg. In those cases, I'd say it's precisely because I do have in sight what I want out of a rpg which makes a particular mechanical style less fun for me.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Well, I don't know how other groups are doing it, but when I'm the GM all a player has to do is to tell me what she wants her pc to do. Then I'll tell her how to do it in the ruleset we happen to use. The system doesn't matter because roleplaying works regardless of the system.

I'm repeating myself here, but I think that ignores the vast diversity of tabletop RPGs as a whole, as well as genre differences between RPGs.

Yes, if you're playing a traditional medieval fantasy setting it doesn't make that much difference which traditional medieval fantasy RPG you're playing. But are you going to use a Star Wars system to play a noir mystery drama? Not only that, but different RPG systems bring different ideas about lethality, player narrative powers, etc. Just asking "What does your character do?" doesn't work if the system specifically allows PCs to temporarily define characteristics of the setting outside of their character (other NPCs, places, and plots) through narrative devices. As another example, a system with no social rules is going to be very different than a system with social combat mechanics ingrained in the system, and depending on how much social intrigue you want in your game, you might pick one or the other based on the needs of the campaign.

Which is to say, that systems can be much more different than I think people are giving credit for.

 

[Jhaelen]

But are you going to use a Star Wars system to play a noir mystery drama?

Sure, why not?
As long as your players are on board you can use any system to play whatever you want. Mechanics you don't need can be ignored or house-ruled.

Note, that I'm actually a big proponent of 'using the right tool for a job'. Personally, I feel there's little point to play an investigative Mythos-themed game using the AD&D 1e rules when you can use Call of Cthulhu or Trail of Cthulhu instead. But you _can_. And given a good GM and an interested group it will probably be a whole lot of fun, too.

Different levels of lethality are completely unproblematic: Don't you warn players if they attempt something that has a high chance of getting their characters killed?

I also fail to see the problem of using systems that give characters a degree of plot-control: All you need to explain to the players beforehand is the limits of what they can do within the chosen setting, and you're good. I mean, I'm still assuming that the players know beforehand what kind of game they signed in for: Surprising players with a game that is completely different from what they expected is a potential recipe for disaster and will typically not result in the players enjyoing the game. But again, this is not a matter of using a particular system, it's a matter of communicating with your players!

 

[Mallus]

As another example, a system with no social rules is going to be very different than a system with social combat mechanics ingrained in the system, and depending on how much social intrigue you want in your game, you might pick one or the other based on the needs of the campaign.

This assumes the people playing require formal, social-resolution mechanics in order to play a campaign heavy on intrigue. The funny and sometimes counter-intuitive thing about RPGs is you don't always need rules for the things the game is about.

I ran a very successful AD&D 2 campaign for several years which quickly became almost entirely intrigue & globe-trotting diplomacy. Without any rules for that stuff. We just talked (occasionally, I would roll a d20 to add a random element to my fiat). This isn't to knock systems with well-written social conflict rules, mind you.

Here's the "system" that matters to me. It's got 4 parts.

#1 - the people playing
#2 - the rules system they use
#3 - the particular way they interpret/use those rules
#4 - their environment (time and place), ie how often they play, how busy they are with other commitments, are the sessions all gaming or mixed socializing. What kind of campaign can their lifestyles support?

I can appreciate good design, and all the way design can shape play, but "system" is just a tool set, but my experiences tell me the users matter a lot more than the tools.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I tend to look at an rpg system as analagous to a style of filmmaking.

For example, you could take a particular action movie script and shoot in for $200 million in the biggest, most ostentatious style, or you could do the same thing for $20 million and use hand-held cameras, minimize the effects and try and utilize the power of imagination, or you could do it for $20 thousand as an amateur production for the fun of it. Same story, very different final product.

Similarly, you can do your social intrigue campaign in D&D, or Cortex, or BRP, and each game will produce a distinct outcome, any of which might be a good outcome for the right group.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I think everybody in the thread basically agrees with everyone else, actually.

This assumes the people playing require formal, social-resolution mechanics in order to play a campaign heavy on intrigue. The funny and sometimes counter-intuitive thing about RPGs is you don't always need rules for the things the game is about.

So what you're saying is that some people have system preferences that affect what game they choose to play, correct? Which would be agreement with me. I don't think anyone has said in this entire thread that system is the most important thing, after all. Just that it does affect play and shouldn't be ignored.

Similarly, you can do your social intrigue campaign in D&D, or Cortex, or BRP, and each game will produce a distinct outcome, any of which might be a good outcome for the right group.

Yep, depending on what the group wants out of the ruleset, choose the system that fits the playstyle.