Jon Peterson: Does System Matter?

D&D historian Jon Peterson asks the question on his blog as he does a deep dive into how early tabletop RPG enthusiasts wrestled with the same thing.

Based around the concept that 'D&D can do anything, so why learn a new system?', the conversation examines whether the system itself affects the playstyle of those playing it. Some systems are custom-designed to create a certain atmosphere (see Dread's suspenseful Jenga-tower narrative game), and Call of Cthulhu certainly discourages the D&D style of play, despite a d20 version in early 2000s.

Does System Matter?

Dungeons & Dragons started out as a game with such an adaptable and open-ended set of rules that early adopters questioned whether any fur...

playingattheworld.blogspot.com

 

[Campbell]

I do think it's somewhat of an issue that we have conditioned people into thinking playing a new game requires about as much effort as taking an undergrad course at a university. Here are your required textbooks. Here are your worksheets. First class will be dedicated to going over the syllabus. Don't forget your pencil.

 

[pemerton]

Despite Vincent Baker by his own admission writing Apocalypse World largely as a response to and criticism of Forge ideology

I've seen this said before. I don't think it's quite right, given that the acknowledgements page of Apocalypse World (p 288):

Stakes questions are based on stakes in Trollbabe, by Ron Edwards.

Threat countdowns are based on bangs in Sorcerer, by Ron Edwards. . . .

The character sex moves were inspired by Sex & Sorcerer, by Ron Edwards. . . .

The entire game design follows from “Narrativism: Story Now” by Ron Edwards.

Online resources:
The Forge (indie-rpgs.com)​

I know Baker has said that AW is not a "Forge game", but by that he meant - as I read him - that it is not "hyper-focused" in the manner of the early suite of games that emerged self-consciously out of the Forge milieu. He didn't mean that the game was not influenced by, or building upon, ideas that were generated at the Forge.

The technical bits that most of us think about when we think of system/game design matter, but not a whole lot.

<snip>

Those technical differences do matter, but not like a lot in the grand scheme of things.

<snip>

That's what System Matters is all about. It's about getting away from just designing those technical bits and really devoting time to designing the process of play.

My view is that there are limits to how far one can change the process of play without also turning attention to the technical differences.

One example from my own experience: Rolemaster and RQ are very similar - both are "realism"/process-simulation reactions to D&D with skill-based resolution, more "organic" rather than class-based systems of PC build, hit locations and penalties in combat, etc. Both have rules for attack and parry, but they are different: in RQ each is a separate skill; in RM each is built from a common pool, on a round-by-round basis. This means that RM allows a player whose PC is in melee to make round-by-round decisions about how to manage risk. RM's spell-casting allows a similar decision-making process, because of the rules for casting quickly and/or at higher level in exchange for an increased failure chance. (RM ranged combat doesn't have this sort of feature; hence it's the most boring of the three standard player combat build approaches found in a trad FRPG.)

What sorts of risks do I want to take in combat is probably not the most interesting thematic question of all time, but it is a question which RM allows to be raised and answered, with the answer varying based on what is at stake in the particular combat.

RM also has more choice in PC build than does RQ - in that way it is less "organic" and amenable to metagaming. This allows players to send signals about priorities via PC build.

These technical differences permit RM to support, in a halting way, a more scene-framing process of play than RQ. But there are other technical features of RM that get in the way: like AD&D it has fiddly spell durations; like many "ultra-sim" games it has complex healing rules; it encourages tracking ammunition, keeping track of rest times, etc - and all of this stuff makes it hard to bring scenes to a clean end and frame new ones. It's interesting to look at another superficially ultra-sim game - Burning Wheel - and see how it has some features in common with RM but also has differences, including these sorts of technical differences, that allow a more robust scene-framing process.

What I have found very valuable in Forge analysis is an appreciation of the importance of the process of play - ie there is more to RPGing than just fiddling with your rules for healing times and dice rolling systems - but also a sophisticated appreciation of the way that technical elements of design underpin and either support or cut against possible processes.

 

[pemerton]

An addendum to my post just upthread: what would make ranged combat more interesting in a broadly Rolemaster framework would be a pool that involved trading of stealth/cover against basic attack bonus.

But that would be very hard to do in the system as it currently stands, because the skill-based PC build system has no way to put bow attacks and stealthily taking cover into the same "pool". So to make my idea work you'd need to use some sort of workaround via the action economy where taking cover and shooting a bow both draw from the same pool.

In RM that could quickly turn into a nightmare, as it's action economy rules even in their most straightforward version are brutally complex. I don't know much about PF2, but I understand that it uses a less complex action economy to try and achieve some similar sorts of trade-offs. (I've read about its raising your shield rules for melee combat. I don't know if it has something similar for taking cover that applies to ranged combatants.)

 

[PsyzhranV2]

I've seen this said before. I don't think it's quite right, given that the acknowledgements page of Apocalypse World (p 288):

It came up in a Twitter discussion he was involved in (some of the replies have been deleted)


I could have sworn he wrote more on the Forge on his Twitter, maybe he deleted those threads?

 

[pemerton]

@PsyzhranV2

Sometimes when cultural movements develop, or even break down into component or conflicting parts, those transformations and breakdowns get seized on by reactionaries to argue that the whole cultural movement was pointless or a failure.

It seems to me that there are some posters (I don't think you're one!) who want to take the sorts of remarks from Vincent Baker that you've pointed to and turn them into that sort of reactionary critique. Whereas that it is not what I take Baker himself to be doing - any more than, say, cubism reveals impressionism to have been pointless, or Picasso's later work means that everyone who never liked cubism because it was too "weird" for them was right to do so.

I hope that makes sense.

 

[Umbran]

I can. Because I like learning about rules and systems. Most people don't. Just like most people don't like changing the oil in their cars, even though some weirdos do.

So... do you reject the idea that maybe there's ways to learn a system other than how you do it now?

I'm not sure why you regard this like some kind of problem that needs to be fixed.

Because I think that, with some thought, the hobby can be enriched. An enriched hobby is good for all of us.

In the end, yes, you should play what you like. But, we should be interested in removing barriers to people exploring various game, so they can be sure they find what they like most, and learn more of what kinds of play are available, and how they work, rather than being stuck playing what they learn first, just because the barriers to entry of games are high.

 

[Aldarc]

I do think it's somewhat of an issue that we have conditioned people into thinking playing a new game requires about as much effort as taking an undergrad course at a university. Here are your required textbooks. Here are your worksheets. First class will be dedicated to going over the syllabus. Don't forget your pencil.

IME, teaching most new RPGs at an introductory level doesn't take any longer than learning a new board or card game.

 

[Haffrung]

So... do you reject the idea that maybe there's ways to learn a system other than how you do it now?

I already said, I enjoy learning new systems. You enjoy learning new systems. Most of the people on this forum enjoy learning new systems. It's the muggles who don't. And because of the peculiar nature of this hobby, a typical group consists of a hyper-nerd (like us), a moderately engaged player, and several muggles. This dramatic disparity in the engagement levels of most participants in an RPG group is the unrecognized source of much of the sturm und drang of RPG forum culture.

Because I think that, with some thought, the hobby can be enriched. An enriched hobby is good for all of us.

In the end, yes, you should play what you like. But, we should be interested in removing barriers to people exploring various game, so they can be sure they find what they like most, and learn more of what kinds of play are available, and how they work, rather than being stuck playing what they learn first, just because the barriers to entry of games are high.

That's only a problem if most people would be appreciably happier playing a different system. But I don't believe most players - the muggles - particularly care about the mechanics of the games they play. For most players, RPG night is like poker night. It's all about the snacks, the laughs, and the camaraderie. It's only us - the hardcores - whose enjoyment is affected by whether we're using dice pools or a d20.

I buy more RPGs than I am likely to ever play. I do this because I enjoy reading and musing about running them. I'm not under any delusion I'll get them all to the table. Even though I have a pretty experienced and engaged group, with three members including myself (out of six) who will buy and read rulebooks, I can maybe slip one new RPG a year into the mix for a few sessions. I do this largely for selfish reasons - I bought the games, they excite me, and I want to try them out. My group humours me because they know I put a lot of work into GMing. But I'm not under any delusions that it makes most of them enjoy game night more.

 

[Bacon Bits]

I do think it's somewhat of an issue that we have conditioned people into thinking playing a new game requires about as much effort as taking an undergrad course at a university. Here are your required textbooks. Here are your worksheets. First class will be dedicated to going over the syllabus. Don't forget your pencil.

I mean, this is why playing D&D was so difficult that it de facto required that you knew someone who already knew how to play the game before you could play the game. The fact that that point was from 1974 through about 2016 or 2017 (due to streaming and recording of live actual plays) is pretty amazing until you realize that D&D 5e is a game with -- depending on how you count them -- anywhere from 180 pages in the Basic 5e PDF to just eight pages shy of 1,000 pages for the PHB, DMG, and MM of just game rules. That's before you get to things like adventures. Given that a totally inexperienced player will have no idea whatsoever which rules are important or necessary to play, this seems like a completely ridiculous task. Like, imagine you bought a board game and the rules were 1,000 pages long. Even with starter sets it can be overwhelming.

Now you want to learn another one when nobody really knows how to play? It's not surprising that it's so daunting to people.

Every time I play a new game system I experience myself becoming a better roleplayer and a better gamer. But it's still a significant investment of time and effort which may or may not pay off.

 

[TheAlkaizer]

[...] to just eight pages shy of 1,000 pages for the PHB, DMG, and MM of just game rules. That's before you get to things like adventures. Given that a totally inexperienced player will have no idea whatsoever which rules are important or necessary to play, this seems like a completely ridiculous task. Like, imagine you bought a board game and the rules were 1,000 pages long. Even with starter sets it can be overwhelming.

That's something I see being repeated often, but it's just not true. There's a very clear difference between rules and content. There's not a 1000 pages of rules. The Monster Manual is almost entirely content. Most players I know played D&D for years without ever reading a single line out of the Monster Manual. Same with the Dungeon's Master Guide. As for the Player's Handbook, you skim over classes, races, make your choice and then deep dive in what interest you. The list of spells is not all relevant to you or relevant at all.

I've done it before, but give a brand new player the Player's Handbook. Tell them to read:

• Page 5 to 7 for the introduction.
• Page 173 to 179 for everything related to throws and ability scores.
• Page 181 to 186 for adventuring.
• Page 189 to 196 for the basics of combat.
• Pages 201 to 202 for spellcasting, if needed.

That's it. That's 21 pages of rules written in natural language. That's all the rules you need to play. Most tabletop or card games that I played had more dense, obtuse and numerous rules than D&D 5E. Also, if you decide to play in Theater of the Mind, you can probably forego a quarter of those pages. And as opposed to a boardgame, if you misunderstand and forget a rule, it doesn't break the mind. Because D&D is not as systemically-driven as most games with a win condition.

And if we talk about a DM? Yes, one person has to invest more time. Instead of spending about 30 minutes to read the pages listed above, they probably need to read page 233 to 260 of the Dungeon's Master Guide to learn how to run the game. Then maybe spend an hour a week in a official adventure to prepare for the week's session.

There's certainly more rules and more things to learn both for players and DMs, but they're things you'll learn later and progressively. You want to create your own monster after a couple of sessions? Go read three pages in the Dungeon's Master Guide and work at it for 30 minutes.