How much does the system matter?

[pawsplay]

A bad system can lead to bad gaming, but a good group can make bad gaming tolerable... perhaps even hilarious.

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[Raven Crowking]

My experience has been that a good group can make just about any system fun. And, similarly, a bad group can ruin the best system.

That's why I said that a bad system sucks the fun out of a group "slowly but surely" and a bad group sucks the fun out of a system "faster than a speeding bullet".

A good group can make just about any system fun, but the effort of making it fun (IMHO and IME) eventually wears the group down.

I went into 3.0 with a great group, and we had fun throughout our playing, but the looooonnnnnggggggggg combats eventually made some players dread combat encounters. And this is understandable; combat seriously damaged what could otherwise get done in a game session. When the pace of a game suffers, the fun of the game suffers.

Now, I realize that some groups might prefer long combats, and it is great that there are systems out there that do this. And I realize that it is easier for a great group to handle a dull system than it is for a dull group to handle a great system. And I realize that both "great" and "dull" depend upon your preferences, both for group and system.

But, ultimately, my experience is not that "a good group can make just about any system fun", but that "a good group will find a system the members consider fun".

I mean, there's no reason to play (Enter System You Don't Like Here) just to show that your group can make it fun when you have the choice of playing (Enter System You Like Here) instead.


RC

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Some systems are just annoying.

But:
I notice, that it is difficult to be a player in a group of a system you usually DM. Every DM uses the system different. And usually he makes different ad hoc decisions than you do.

So when you switch from DM to player using a different system is good. If it is a bad system it can still suck some of the fun out, but usually it evens out.

edit: But the best thing is a session where you didn´t roll the dice once. So the system doesn´t matter (if it doesn´t get into the way of fun)

The worst thing is a DM allowing the dice to decide, when roleplaying and ad hoc decisions should be made.

 

[maddman75]

I'll take a group I like with a system I don't over the opposite.

However, a good group with a bad system would be better with good system. System matters, it affects play in so many ways. Having a good group with fun dynamics can be stifled if the rules get in their way all the time.

System doesn't matter as much if you have a GM that knows when to ignore the RAW and just do what makes for the most fun. Exalted is a lot heavier than I'm used to, and I take a lot of liberties with it.

 

[Desdichado]

Throwing out obvious outlier systems that are just too terrible for words, I'd say system matters about 2 or 3 to me, on a scale of 10. Group matters about 8 or 9.

 

[Dragonbait]

Throwing out obvious outlier systems that are just too terrible for words, I'd say system matters about 2 or 3 to me, on a scale of 10. Group matters about 8 or 9.

This. About two years ago I would have said that a good group can make any system fun for me. Then I played Shadowrun. There went that theory.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

I play the RPG for the system. It is one of the most important things for me.

I like a Universal system that can play most every genre and type of play I like. So setting is less important than the rules, as long as the setting is half decent, I can enjoy it. As long as the genre is one I don't mind I can enjoy it. If the system is one I don't like, I cannot get engaged in the game.

 

[rogueattorney]

There are few different issues here:

1. System does matter more than I think a lot of people will admit. The mechanics of a game will have a ton of input into how the players want to play the game. A simple example: Game A takes 5 minutes to create a character; Game B takes 45 minutes to create a character; In which game will character lethality be more acceptable to the players?

2. Does the system match the style of game the players want to play? In the 80's I saw way too many people bang their head against the wall of D&D when they clearly would have been much happier with something more like Harnmaster or Pendragon. Or in my case, where extensive character building is something that frustrates me to no end, 3.x e is simply not the game for me; I'm much happier with Tunnels & Trolls, for example.

3. Finally, a good group does cure a lot of ills. But I'm reminded of Roger Ebert's comments on some films... "Would this be just as interesting if instead of this film, I were hanging out with these actors while they were having an engaging conversation?" Which is to say, if I would be having just as much fun knocking back a couple cold ones and shooting the breeze with my buddies, what exactly is the rpg adding to the equation?* Too much of the "does system matter?" conversation revolves around whether the system is a negative factor, and not enough of it concentrates on the additive qualities of the system.

*I believe, "It's an acceptable excuse to my wife to have my buddies over to knock back a couple cold ones and shoot the breeze," is a good answer to the question.

 

[Chainsaw]

My experience has been that a good group can make just about any system fun. And, similarly, a bad group can ruin the best system.

Have to agree here. I played in a weekly 4E RPGA pick-up game earlier this year. We had 75% regular players/25% newbies every week (1-2 tables depending on attendance) and rotated DM duties. Some weeks were awesome, others sucked. Part of it might have been the mod, but alot of it had to do with who my partners were - whether they were rules lawyers, jerks, newbies, friendlies, etc.