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

[Gundark]

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. In fact the two biggest factors in whether a client improves is, #1 random stuff that you as a therapist have control over (they find a new job, move, start a new relationship, etc) and #2, the quality of the relationship between you and the client (do they trust you? Are you working on their goals? Do they feel like they are being heard?). Actual counselling technique appears to matter very little. 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. Some presenting issues may require specific interventions, but in general terms this appears to be true

Yet...considerable amounts of energy and research goes into comparing and testing different modalities across a plethora of issues and circumstances.

Well what does this mean for RPGs? How much does system matter for the players to enjoy themselves? While I have my favourites systems that I tend to go with. There are the ones that I wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole. However, I’m beginning to wonder if the actual mechanics of these games actually matter compared to the amount of fun I have playing. Back in the day I played BECMI D&D and played a just a Dwarf, or just a Thief, then 3e came along and I thought I needed feats, builds, and customization. Yet, while I had fun playing those games, I don’t think there was any difference in the quality or quantity of the fun I had. I’ve been a player in games where the rules weren’t really to my liking and yet…I had fun… and arguably maybe no more fun than I would have had if my favourite set of rules was used. I have agonized about whether to run a game with FATE or Savage Worlds, or Cortex+, or D&D next and truth be told while some players care, others do not, and at the end of the day is the amount of fun had by the players the same regardless? Is there a meaningful difference?

I think a DM/GM/Storytellers/or what ever we think too much about what system to use, and while it’s an important decision to make, I really question if it will matter as much as we think. As players if a game tanked because of the rules, would it have tanked regardless? Where there other factors at play? Was the GM motivated? Did the group buy into the campaign as described?

Discuss

 

[Janx]

enlightening subject.

I suspect that not all therapy methods are good. Gun Therapy where I hunt shoot the patient, is probably not going to make them better.

I suspect that not all RPG systems are good. FATAL is a game that nobody should play.

But as you explained with therapy methods, all reasonable approaches seem to lead to good outcomes, the same is likely true for RPGS. All reasonable RPG engines lead to having fun.

Now that we've excluded "bad things" from the main pile, what remains is stuff that there's nothing wrong with.

As you noted, it depends more on the patient. If Patient X doesn't like you or trust you, then I guess it doesn't matter what method you use on him. It just won't work for him.

The same is true of RPGs. If you just don't like science fiction, then the Star Wars RPG rules ain't gonna make you have fun.

I think the hard part for people is separating their problem from the tool. Just because I don't like Star Wars doesn't mean the rules are bad.

 

[Gundark]

enlightening subject.

I suspect that not all therapy methods are good. Gun Therapy where I hunt shoot the patient, is probably not going to make them better.

I suspect that not all RPG systems are good. FATAL is a game that nobody should play.

But as you explained with therapy methods, all reasonable approaches seem to lead to good outcomes, the same is likely true for RPGS. All reasonable RPG engines lead to having fun.

Now that we've excluded "bad things" from the main pile, what remains is stuff that there's nothing wrong with.

As you noted, it depends more on the patient. If Patient X doesn't like you or trust you, then I guess it doesn't matter what method you use on him. It just won't work for him.

The same is true of RPGs. If you just don't like science fiction, then the Star Wars RPG rules ain't gonna make you have fun.

I think the hard part for people is separating their problem from the tool. Just because I don't like Star Wars doesn't mean the rules are bad.

LOL, I was going to mention FATAL as one of the exceptions to the rules. I think there is a White Supremacist rpg that would fit into this category as well.

But yeah "reasonable" rpgs

 

[ExploderWizard]

I can play nearly any system and as long as I enjoy the company of the other players, the system/mechanics don't matter that much. When it comes to running something, I'm more picky about the system because I'm the one doing all the prep work.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

How much does system matter for the players to enjoy themselves?

Discuss

All reasonable RPG engines lead to having fun.

I've played in about 100 different systems, and IMHO, system matters.

Problems interfering with player enjoyment can include lack of support for certain PC concepts well, even if they are well-grounded in the RPG's genre. Others have mechanics that certain players will simply not like, either in general or in modeling certain types of things. Others may seem clunky or otherwise unwieldy, either in character creation or play.

LOL, I was going to mention FATAL as one of the exceptions to the rules. I think there is a White Supremacist rpg as well that would fit into this category as well.

That would be RaHoWa RPG.

 

[Gundark]

I can play nearly any system and as long as I enjoy the company of the other players, the system/mechanics don't matter that much. When it comes to running something, I'm more picky about the system because I'm the one doing all the prep work.

I would concur I have to enjoy the rules of a game when I'm running them. My OP was about the players enjoyment.

 

[Gundark]

I've played in about 100 different systems, and IMHO, system matters.

Problems interfering with player enjoyment can include lack of support for certain PC concepts well, even if they are well-grounded in the RPG's genre. Others have mechanics that certain players will simply not like, either in general or in modeling certain types of things. Others may seem clunky or otherwise unwieldy, either in character creation or play.

Rules DO matter for sure. I've played my share of clunky and unwieldy games (Rifts), games that had a ton of rules, games that slowed the game to a crawl, games where the mechnics didn't fit the genre (people trying to run Lord of the Rings with D&D 3rd/4e). These factors impacted the amount of fun I had. However there were always other factors, poor GM preperation (not knowing the rules, nuances of the GM that didn't mesh with the group, the group not buying into the campaign concept (or was told the campaign would be run one way and then instead was run another way) that muddied the water.

Recently I played in a living Pathfinder (or whatever they call it) game. There were all the factors about Pathfinder (and Pathfinder-ish games) I hate (I really dislike Pathfinder/3.x), table discussion about "builds", looking up rules for things because they are complicated, Magic using characters being more interesting than martial characers , etc.

But I had fun, and most likely not significantly less fun than if the DM used a set of rules that was more to my taste.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I was running a M&M game set in 1914 for experienced gamers a while ago. One of the guys wanted to make a super-speedster who could do the very genre-appropriate rapid-fire punch. The systemic design against having iterative attacks made the methods available to design such an attack very unsatisfactory.

In an otherwise good system, that glaring oddity seriously impacted his enjoyment...and that of others.

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.

OTOH, RIFTS' clunkiness was not a major factor in who did or did not participate in a year long campaign in that game. There, it was all about genre.

 

[Luce]

To me the game is determined by the interaction of three factors: DM, Players and System.
So to answer the question I do think system matters, but not exclusively determine the game success. One way to look at it is like a language, while many ones can serve a given end choosing the best compatible to the users goes a long way in ease of use and communication. It comes down to what is important the the given group. If there is going to be little if any combat and lots of social interaction nuances ( to levels of white tie dinner ethics) the system better already have that build in or at least it be easily insert able. It also can be a matter of consistency and continuity. A long running game/campaign, [I realize that itself is ambiguous term but lets say for argument sake 5+ years worth of at least weekly sessions] IMO will benefit from ether formally (official rules/setting) or informally (house rules, campaign notes) defined shared knowledge. I am not saying that the joy of discovery or the occasional outlier cannot be fun, just as things become defined they stay consistent. Rogue moldrons, fallen angels and good undead (in D&D) IMO make for memorable characters both due to their deviation from normalcy as well as their rarity.
So if a system does not facilitates the needs of the group, whether it is inspiring the DM or providing the players with ability to create the types of characters they wish, this while not necessarily making it a bad one means it is not the one to choose for the group's enjoyment.
OK, to look at the question from another angle. The player's involvement in the rules (system transparency) is also a factor. If their is a level of trust towards the GM and the players value the sense of wander over correct RAW application the system matters less then in the inverse situation. However, since RPG are cooperative games the DM's enjoyment is also important. Even if the players are having fun if the DM is just trudging along that will eventually have its effect on the game.

 

[Ahnehnois]

In fact the two biggest factors in whether a client improves is, #1 random stuff that you as a therapist have control over (they find a new job, move, start a new relationship, etc) and #2, the quality of the relationship between you and the client (do they trust you? Are you working on their goals? Do they feel like they are being heard?). Actual counselling technique appears to matter very little.
...
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. Some presenting issues may require specific interventions, but in general terms this appears to be true

A few points here. First, I'm assuming for #1, you meant things that the therapist does not have control over. Any healthcare practitioner accounts for only a portion of the patient's response, and in many cases this is small portion. Not many are modest enough to admit it though.

Second, there are a lot of subtleties here. While I fundamentally agree that the therapeutic relationship is of prime importance, I'd argue that the different schools of thought might have differing benefits depending on both the therapist and the patient. Some patients can be fixed right up by CBT, while in other cases, CBT might be ineffective and even offensive. Sub in Rogerian counseling or psychoanalysis or medical treatment as well. So while it has not been established that one approach is simply better, I suspect that there are differences on the individual level. Similarly, many marginally effective drugs are great for some people and useless for others, thus we need pharmacogenomics. But yes, the person to person connection (what in medical contexts would fall under "placebo" oddly enough) is very important.

Yet...considerable amounts of energy and research goes into comparing and testing different modalities across a plethora of issues and circumstances.

No kidding.

Well what does this mean for RPGs? How much does system matter for the players to enjoy themselves?
...
I think a DM/GM/Storytellers/or what ever we think too much about what system to use, and while it’s an important decision to make, I really question if it will matter as much as we think. As players if a game tanked because of the rules, would it have tanked regardless? Where there other factors at play? Was the GM motivated? Did the group buy into the campaign as described?

I think system actually matters more to the players than the DM, because they have to follow rules and the DM does not. If you're a player and you're trying to make a character or perform an action that the rules don't cover (or don't cover well) it can be frustrating and players can fee marginalized. If you're a DM, you just do whatever's in your head, rules be damned. If you're a player, you may read the rules very closely and build your ideas from what you read, but DMs are more likely generating plot ideas that exist independent of game systems and using the system to render them.

I also think that rules can have a deleterious effect, particularly by creating perverse incentives. Various iterations and interpretations of D&D's reward system (XP) have certainly been effective in encouraging players to behave in unheroic and sometimes psychopathic ways. Which is a good reason to ignore them.

However, I am inclined to believe that the DM-player relationship is every bit as important as the therapeutic relationship.

I also think that, as is the case with medical and psychological treatments, people that stand to make money off of these things will of course exaggerate the benefits of rule systems. And indeed, I suspect that good advertising and promotional strategies can encourage changes in behavior independent of the rules, creating a sort of D&D placebo effect predicated on positive expectation. I've seen a lot of talk about "reducing DM prep" or "fast and loose play" or "taking your game back", that is often hyperbolic or simply manufactured. That is, the books themselves wouldn't logically produce those effects. And yet people's games change when they change rules systems. Sometimes, a simple encouragement to play differently can be all you need.