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

[Sword of Spirit]

Interesting question. System definitely matters in terms of effectively accompling your goals and creating a desired experience at the table. But does achieving your GM goals and creating the desired experience substantially affect the amount of fun the players have? Does a player's fun depend on achieving goals or specific experiences that are related to their own expectations?

I think part of it depends on personality in general. Many people just want fun, and don't care how they get there. For those people you might get virtually nothing done in the game session, but if everyone is goofing off together they might have as much fun as a perfectly crafted and run adventure would provide.

I think fun isn't usually all that affected by system, but *satisfaction* for me very much is. I gues that's how I would define it. I have certain expectations going into a game, and if they aren't met, I'm going to be unsatisfied, even if I have just as much fun. In the long term, building frustration probably will actually reduce my fun.

So does that add to the equation? Is it all about fun? If not, is there something else we can get out of the experience to better meet our needs?

 

[Argyle King]

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

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 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.

 

[techno]

I believe the quality of the adventure and associated storytelling is more important than the system used. However, I do agree that some systems make telling certain types of stories difficult or even impossible.

Paizo has chosen to compete with WotC on the basis of putting out better adventures and stories. This seems to be a powerful approach which is working for them. Most of the D&D Next information has focused on specific system mechanics--which is not as big a deal as great adventures/stories to me.

The primary reason I switched from 4e to Pathfinder was the outstanding adventures available for Pathfinder. I really don't like the 3.5 mechanics, but I love the adventures available for the PF system.

 

[Argyle King]

I believe the quality of the adventure and associated storytelling is more important than the system used. However, I do agree that some systems make telling certain types of stories difficult or even impossible.

Paizo has chosen to compete with WotC on the basis of putting out better adventures and stories. This seems to be a powerful approach which is working for them. Most of the D&D Next information has focused on specific system mechanics--which is not as big a deal as great adventures/stories to me.

The primary reason I switched from 4e to Pathfinder was the outstanding adventures available for Pathfinder. I really don't like the 3.5 mechanics, but I love the adventures available for the PF system.

To an extent I agree. As I said in my previous post, I think storytelling can trump mechanics. Paizo is a great example; many of their adventures are great. However, while I do buy the adventures, I usually use a different system to run them (GURPS in my case.) There are reasons why I choose to do that, and most of those reasons are due to how I feel the different mechanics interact with the stories being told to create what is (for me) a better and more enjoyable experience.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I've played a fair number of games and system matters. It's not the only thing that matters, but it matters.

First, system has to not get in the way of fun. This is very subjective: some people like detailed resource management, some hate it, and most are in between. For someone on the "hate it" side of this spectrum, a game like (IIRC) Ars Magica is going to be a problem.

Second, system has to match genre. I wouldn't use Big Eyes Small mouth for a Lovecraft game nor Call of Cthulhu for anime.

Third, the game is more fun if it mechanically supports desired activities. I'm very interested in The One Ring because of how I've heard it supports mechanically supports journeys as a game experience. (which reminds me that I need to go get a copy ...)

There are things that matter more than system to me. Playing with fun people is at the top of my list. First person roleplay, exploration, and tactical combat all come in above system. But I really do want a game system that enhances my fun.

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

Simple answer: In my experience, system matters a lot.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[Blackbrrd]

I think the premises of the system is more important than the system. Take D&D with it's steep power curve and then compare it to a Call of Cthulu game where you generally get worse the longer you play, eventually going mad. I really enjoy D&D, but dislike Call of Cthulu, it's just not my cup of tea.

 

[delericho]

System matters. But it's not the only thing that matters, nor is it even the thing that matters most. In fact, it's a very distant second (or third, or something).

90% of the fun of RPGs comes from the other people around the table. Get together a great GM and a group of great players, and you're likely to have fun even with a game you dislike. Conversely, even one 'bad' member of the group can destroy even the best game for everyone else - and the very best system in existence simply cannot redeem such an experience.

Of course, the ideal is to get a great GM, a great group of players, for them all to share the same favourite system, and to play that system.

IMO and IMX only, of course. YMMV.

 

[techno]

To an extent I agree. As I said in my previous post, I think storytelling can trump mechanics. Paizo is a great example; many of their adventures are great. However, while I do buy the adventures, I usually use a different system to run them (GURPS in my case.) There are reasons why I choose to do that, and most of those reasons are due to how I feel the different mechanics interact with the stories being told to create what is (for me) a better and more enjoyable experience.

This makes perfect sense for someone who has the will and the time to perform the necessary conversions. GURPS is probably my favorite rules system, but I don't play it because very few published adventures are available for it, and I am unwilling to take on the added burden of converting adventures from one system to another. So, at least in my case, system doesn't matter enough to warrant all that extra work. For others in different circumstances, I can see why they might be willing to do the required conversion work.

 

[techno]

So it sounds like, based on this discussion, great people + great story + a system that doesn't "get in the way" = great and memorable gaming.