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

 

[prabe]

On the desired play experience (agenda).

I would also add to the above (particularly with respect to the bolded) that the analysis is intended to forensically suss out (rather than abstract or abridge) what constitutes desired play experience x vs desired play experience y vs desired play experience z (and so on)? One of the problems with lack of analysis is that it seems to just assume that there is really only one...maybe a few...desired play experiences. In reality, there are many, many desired play experiences.

Indeed. I think there are some people who want to play different games for different agendas, and there are others who don't--possibly because they prefer for the agenda to emerge from play, or at least not to be determined before play starts. That is (or feels to me as though it is) how the games I'm running have worked out.

"Designing blind" (not understanding, at a forensic level, what constitutes and differentiates desired play experiences) is almost always a pretty fraught endeavor. One might respond "I'm not designing blind, I'm designing based on intuition." To that I would say, (i) you either have a much greater grip on the desired play experience than you're able to articulate (which is absolutely a thing) or (ii) you've got some cognitive or experiential blind spots (possibly both) that you're not aware of and you're either smuggling them in and then extrapolating from them or ignoring them and papering over the issues that arise from that. (ii) is absolutely "designing blind" while (i) is basically being possessed of the ability to do all the stuff in my first two paragraphs (even if you can't articulate it or "show your work").

I don't exactly disagree with this, but I think it's ... important? relevant? ... to point out that your (i) and (ii) aren't mutually exclusive: It is entirely possible to have both a solid intuitive grasp on the matter and vast echoing blind spots.

 

[Manbearcat]

Indeed. I think there are some people who want to play different games for different agendas, and there are others who don't--possibly because they prefer for the agenda to emerge from play, or at least not to be determined before play starts. That is (or feels to me as though it is) how the games I'm running have worked out.

I don't exactly disagree with this, but I think it's ... important? relevant? ... to point out that your (i) and (ii) aren't mutually exclusive: It is entirely possible to have both a solid intuitive grasp on the matter and vast echoing blind spots.

What do you have in mind for what (i) and (ii) combined look like when it comes to analyzing or running or designing TTRPGs?

I’d ask lowkey but he appears to have blocked me!

 

[Ovinomancer]

What do you have in mind for what (ii) looks like when it comes to analyzing or running or designing TTRPGs?

I’d ask lowkey but he appears to have blocked me!

Same, but be warned: snarf doesn't like people mentioning he's lowkey returned any more than he likes people who dare to disagree.

 

[prabe]

What do you have in mind for what (i) and (ii) combined look like when it comes to analyzing or running or designing TTRPGs?

I've encountered examples in other fields--fiction writers who clearly got what makes fiction work, but hadn't read much in the way of books about it, and couldn't really articulate why a given story worked, or didn't; musicians who could do music, but couldn't read or write music at all, and only had the vaguest sense of the intervals or chords or technology they were working with.

Do I have any specific examples from TRPGs? Not particularly, though I'd say the earliest examples might come close--they seem to have been a combination of intuition, extrapolation, and trial-and-error (but the history of TRPGs isn't exactly my forte).

I think someone might run with some success (defined, I guess, as "the people at the table having fun") focusing primarily on the narrative goals the players/characters have chosen to pursue, operating mostly thinking about A) what makes narrative sense and B) what they'd enjoy as a player. Given that someone isn't prepping or running with much thought for TRPG theory, that might be close.

 

[TheSword]

I think part of the problem is how reductive the argument gets.

It is often claimed that X game is better at Y because of Z.

However that ignores the fact that the game system may be unsuitable or undesirable for a particular person or group for a whole host of other reasons. These are complex systems and there are dozens and dozens of factors that might put a person off using it. Both system related and production related.

So people argue for a particular system because of its great qualities in one area even though it’s not suitable because of another reason. If those flaws don’t matter to the advocate it’s understandable that the advocate gets frustrated when they see it as their best option and other people don’t.

I think this applies to D&D and it works for Dungeon World, Travelled, GURPs whatever.

We make peace with the system we like, mitigate its flaws and extols its virtues. It’s part of being a fan.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think part of the problem is how reductive the argument gets.

It is often claimed that X game is better at Y because of Z.

However that ignores the fact that the game system may be unsuitable or undesirable for a particular person or group for a whole host of other reasons. These are complex systems and there are dozens and dozens of factors that might put a person off using it. Both system related and production related.

So people argue for a particular system because of its great qualities in one area even though it’s not suitable because of another reason. If those flaws don’t matter to the advocate it’s understandable that the advocate gets frustrated when they see it as their best option and other people don’t.

I think this applies to D&D and it works for Dungeon World, Travelled, GURPs whatever.

We make peace with the system we like, mitigate its flaws and extols its virtues. It’s part of being a fan.

It does not ignore this at all. X may indeed be better at Y because of Z and you can not like X. In that case, X isn't for you.

For instance, when I say that Blades in the Dark does a better job at replicating the kind of story features in the show Leverage than D&D, this is undoubtedly true -- it is designed, in large part, to do just this. However, that doesn't mean you should like BitD, or that you should prefer it to D&D, even if running a heist a la Leverage. It's a clear statement, though, that it does that job better.

The side to this is that you may not at all care to run a game that emulates Leverage, and that's cool, too. The analysis about how a system functions is not the same as a judgement call you make about your preferences.

As for your last, I'm a fan of D&D, but I play other games for other things. I play D&D when I want to play a D&D game. I play BitD when I want to do BitD things. Etc, etc. I'm a fan of all of these games. Being a fan doesn't mean you're stuck with the one thing.

 

[TheSword]

It does not ignore this at all. X may indeed be better at Y because of Z and you can not like X. In that case, X isn't for you.

For instance, when I say that Blades in the Dark does a better job at replicating the kind of story features in the show Leverage than D&D, this is undoubtedly true -- it is designed, in large part, to do just this. However, that doesn't mean you should like BitD, or that you should prefer it to D&D, even if running a heist a la Leverage. It's a clear statement, though, that it does that job better.

The side to this is that you may not at all care to run a game that emulates Leverage, and that's cool, too. The analysis about how a system functions is not the same as a judgement call you make about your preferences.

As for your last, I'm a fan of D&D, but I play other games for other things. I play D&D when I want to play a D&D game. I play BitD when I want to do BitD things. Etc, etc. I'm a fan of all of these games. Being a fan doesn't mean you're stuck with the one thing.

I never said you were stuck with one system. I said it’s natural for fans to mitigate flaws and extol virtues.

You’re missing the point. Blades in the Dark might be good for your group to represent Leverage... I have no earthly idea of what specific points you’re making about either the show or the game but hey ho... It may be entirely inappropriate for another group to use to tell those stories though for a whole host of other reasons.

Maybe a game system is out of print, or the production values are poor, or there isn’t a translation, or the products don’t feature quality maps, or the rules are too sparse, or too complicated, or too similationist, or too heroic, or the opposite, or open to abuse by optimizers, or not usable by optimizers, or lacks granular options, or has too many options, or doesn’t feature LGBT representation, or does, or isn’t supported by enough published adventures or one of the designers is an arse, or a Kickstarter failed and burnt a load of people, or or or or.

Those things that others find an issue might not matter to you. You just keep maintaining X game is fine because you like Y about it.

What matters is the method that your table, or mine finds best. It’s quite possible we can tell the same stories with different systems that suit our individual tastes.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I never said you were stuck with one system. I said it’s natural for fans to mitigate flaws and extol virtues.

Yes, I'll agree it's often the case with fandom that loyalty to the object of fandom comes before honest analysis.

You’re missing the point. Blades in the Dark might be good for your group to represent Leverage... I have no earthly idea of what specific points you’re making about either the show or the game but hey ho... It may be entirely unfor another group to tell those stories though for a whole host of other reasons.

No, BitD does Leverage better -- it has specific systems that emulate features of that show. You can still not like it for many varied reasons. The ones most often given by those steeped in D&D are usually pointed at the how fiction is generated in play by all players rather than the sole, often premeditated, domain of the GM. And, to be fair, there's a good bit of validity to this -- that kind of play puts a lot more on the players, who may or may not really want that level of responsibility or effort.

I don't really care if you don't like BitD. It won't stop me playing it. It also won't stop me playing 5e, the game I'm running at the moment.

Maybe a game system is out of print, or the production values are poor, or there isn’t a translation, or the products don’t feature quality maps, or the rules are too sparse, or too complicated, or too similationist, or too heroic, or the opposite, or open to abuse by optimizers, or not usable by optimizers, or lacks granular options, or has too many options, or doesn’t feature LGBT representation, or does, or isn’t supported by enough published adventures or one of the designers is an arse, or a Kickstarter failed and burnt a load of people, or or or or.

Ah, the gish gallop. Yeah, sure, there's lots of reasons to dislike something. Disliking a system for reasons doesn't mean it's not better suited to a particular play goal. There are a number of fine games I dislike, but that do things well. I dislike FATE, but it does what it does pretty well, and can generate play that other systems can't or have trouble with.

Those things that others find an issue might not matter to you. You just keep maintaining X game is fine because you like Y about it.

Those reasons don't address how system X does thing Y, though, so your point is left hanging.

What matters is the method your table, or mine finds best. It’s quite possible we can tell the same stories with different systems that suit our individual tastes.

I agree -- you should absolutely play the game you like and that does the best for you. However, asserting that you don't like games because they're not D&D and so can't do something better than D&D is just sticking your head in the sand. D&D does things that are better than other systems (honestly, at this point, the main thing D&D does better is be D&D, which is a thing, and valuable). I will 100% absolutely state that Blades in the Dark does dungeons horribly, and it does pre-planned cool plots horribly (not even at all, it's so bad at it). If you want an adventure path, DO NOT pick up BitD. It's rubbish at it. Other systems do some of the things BitD does better -- even some of the things close to it's heart. But, overall, if you want a game that does scrappy rogue crews climbing up the ladder in a corrupted city, it's damn hard to find a better system for it than Blades. And, given that, you can STILL not like it! Trust me, you won't hurt it's feelings (or mine).

The need to defend against even the suggestion of fault seems to be a fairly unique things to mono-gamers. Which, honestly, is almost tautological -- there's a feedback loop to mono-gaming. And, to be absolutely clear, there's nothing wrong at all with mono-gaming! NOTHING AT ALL! The weird fetish to reflexively defend the game, though, is annoying.

 

[TheSword]

Yes, I'll agree it's often the case with fandom that loyalty to the object of fandom comes before honest analysis.

No, BitD does Leverage better -- it has specific systems that emulate features of that show. You can still not like it for many varied reasons. The ones most often given by those steeped in D&D are usually pointed at the how fiction is generated in play by all players rather than the sole, often premeditated, domain of the GM. And, to be fair, there's a good bit of validity to this -- that kind of play puts a lot more on the players, who may or may not really want that level of responsibility or effort.

I don't really care if you don't like BitD. It won't stop me playing it. It also won't stop me playing 5e, the game I'm running at the moment.

Ah, the gish gallop. Yeah, sure, there's lots of reasons to dislike something. Disliking a system for reasons doesn't mean it's not better suited to a particular play goal. There are a number of fine games I dislike, but that do things well. I dislike FATE, but it does what it does pretty well, and can generate play that other systems can't or have trouble with.

Those reasons don't address how system X does thing Y, though, so your point is left hanging.

I agree -- you should absolutely play the game you like and that does the best for you. However, asserting that you don't like games because they're not D&D and so can't do something better than D&D is just sticking your head in the sand. D&D does things that are better than other systems (honestly, at this point, the main thing D&D does better is be D&D, which is a thing, and valuable). I will 100% absolutely state that Blades in the Dark does dungeons horribly, and it does pre-planned cool plots horribly (not even at all, it's so bad at it). If you want an adventure path, DO NOT pick up BitD. It's rubbish at it. Other systems do some of the things BitD does better -- even some of the things close to it's heart. But, overall, if you want a game that does scrappy rogue crews climbing up the ladder in a corrupted city, it's damn hard to find a better system for it than Blades. And, given that, you can STILL not like it! Trust me, you won't hurt it's feelings (or mine).

The need to defend against even the suggestion of fault seems to be a fairly unique things to mono-gamers. Which, honestly, is almost tautological -- there's a feedback loop to mono-gaming. And, to be absolutely clear, there's nothing wrong at all with mono-gaming! NOTHING AT ALL! The weird fetish to reflexively defend the game, though, is annoying.

I see you are the one making sweeping statements of opinion as fact.

Let me give you a hypothetical example. Blades in the Dark is not suitable for my group to tell Heist style stories like Leverage, because they fundamentally don’t like the approach that they are presumed to have what they needed at the time. They enjoy the preparation and planning elements, not retrospectively doing this as the game goes on. That type of rule mechanic doesn’t fit their tastes. So your sweeping statement that the system is objectively better at this is just plain wrong for them. It doesn’t work for them.

Let me give you another example. Our group likes gritty, low magic, grim dark fantasy from time to time, where they play down and outs, not heroes. I’m a fan of WFRP. However the fact that the system is open to massive abuse particularly at higher experience points means it just doesn’t work for our group. For many people WFRP is the best way to tell those stories. While for us, a heavily modified 1st edition pathfinder or AIME based 5e is the best way.

These are all just opinions of course. But feel free to make more assertions as fact. I’m honestly amazed you think I have any skin in the game as to which system you play. I am entirely ambivalent.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Note to self: convert the settings from Thristy Sword Lesbians for my next Pathfinder campaign...