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

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

Which is a perfectly good reason to not like BitD, but it's not because it doesn't do Leverage well. It's because they prefer a different play goal and agenda. Which is what I've been saying.

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.

Okay. The differences between WFRP and D&D are slight, as noted previously in this thread. That you find the mechanical implementation of D&D to do better for you is great, I'm glad you've found a game that works for you. However, to my point, I'd strongly recommend that you avoid Toon or Paranoia as games that are grim and gritty -- both do these things terribly. WFRP does grim and gritty much better than either, and so does D&D.

See how that works?

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.

I'm pretty confident that BitD does Leverage better than D&D as a statement of fact. That you don't prefer that is your preference, and perfectly fine. I'm also confident in saying that Toon does Grim and Gritty terribly, and you're choice of D&D for this itch is well founded because D&D does Grim and Gritty much better than Toon.

You can dislike a thing, and it still do something well, or better than another system. What appears to me is that you prefer D&D because you like D&D. Perfectly valid, glad you've found a great game and it serves your needs. I love D&D, myself, but I also like Leverage, and find that when that itch needs scratching, I can pick up a game that does that better.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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

Oh, my!

 

[TheSword]

Which is a perfectly good reason to not like BitD, but it's not because it doesn't do Leverage well. It's because they prefer a different play goal and agenda. Which is what I've been saying.

Okay. The differences between WFRP and D&D are slight, as noted previously in this thread. That you find the mechanical implementation of D&D to do better for you is great, I'm glad you've found a game that works for you. However, to my point, I'd strongly recommend that you avoid Toon or Paranoia as games that are grim and gritty -- both do these things terribly. WFRP does grim and gritty much better than either, and so does D&D.

See how that works?

I'm pretty confident that BitD does Leverage better than D&D as a statement of fact. That you don't prefer that is your preference, and perfectly fine. I'm also confident in saying that Toon does Grim and Gritty terribly, and you're choice of D&D for this itch is well founded because D&D does Grim and Gritty much better than Toon.

You can dislike a thing, and it still do something well, or better than another system. What appears to me is that you prefer D&D because you like D&D. Perfectly valid, glad you've found a great game and it serves your needs. I love D&D, myself, but I also like Leverage, and find that when that itch needs scratching, I can pick up a game that does that better.

“You should play my new role playing game. It’s better than D&D for running heroic fantasy games.”

“Oh cool, I love heroic fantasy games. will I like it?”

“Nah, it’s not much fun. But it is better for running heroic fantasy games.”

If my group doesn’t like it, any claim you make that it’s better at running a particular type of game is moot. How much you like a game for the what you’re trying to achieve with it, is the entire point.

 

[Ovinomancer]

“You should play my new role playing game. It’s better than D&D for running heroic fantasy games.”

Said no one.

“Oh cool, I love heroic fantasy games. will I like it?”

“Nah, it’s not much fun. But it is better for running heroic fantasy games.”

Said no one.

If my group doesn’t like it, any claim you make that it’s better at running a particular type of game is moot.

How much you like a game at portraying what you’re trying to achieve with it, is the entire point.

Yes, if you don't like it, the claim isn't of much value to you, but that doesn't render the claim invalid. And, I fully agree, finding a game you enjoy is the entire point -- but honest, clear enunciation of how systems work and how they differ is a tool to do this, not a mandate directing your choice.

I was very specific in my point about Blades in the Dark. Other systems do Leverage well, too. D&D doesn't. It's not well equipped for that kind of emulation, and that's fine It's strengths lie in other places. However, reflexive defensiveness over the claim that BitD does Leverage style games better than D&D, up to and including the argument that you don't like it for other reasons or that there's any claim that you should or must play it, is ridiculous. No one's claiming this. I certainly don't -- I'm running 5e right now, so clearly I don't have any problems with it. I'm even running an AP -- Descent into Avernus -- which is terribly put together in places but we're having fun and that's the part that matters. See, I can even say that the AP sucks (and man does it in places), but that it's still fun and I play it! Drop the need to defend D&D -- trust me, it'll do fine without it.

 

[TheSword]

Said no one.

Said no one.

Yes, if you don't like it, the claim isn't of much value to you, but that doesn't render the claim invalid. And, I fully agree, finding a game you enjoy is the entire point -- but honest, clear enunciation of how systems work and how they differ is a tool to do this, not a mandate directing your choice.

I was very specific in my point about Blades in the Dark. Other systems do Leverage well, too. D&D doesn't. It's not well equipped for that kind of emulation, and that's fine It's strengths lie in other places. However, reflexive defensiveness over the claim that BitD does Leverage style games better than D&D, up to and including the argument that you don't like it for other reasons or that there's any claim that you should or must play it, is ridiculous. No one's claiming this. I certainly don't -- I'm running 5e right now, so clearly I don't have any problems with it. I'm even running an AP -- Descent into Avernus -- which is terribly put together in places but we're having fun and that's the part that matters. See, I can even say that the AP sucks (and man does it in places), but that it's still fun and I play it! Drop the need to defend D&D -- trust me, it'll do fine without it.

I think you’ll find in my last posts I haven’t defended D&D once. In fact you’ll see I said this applies as much to people claiming D&D and ignoring its flaws as anything else.

What you are reflexively arguing against is the idea that what might work for some people might not work for others. You like chunky sauce, I like smooth sauce. If I don’t like bits of tomato in my sauce. It doesn’t matter how fresh, or authentic, or healthy it is, if I don’t like it. Your claims that Chunky is better for making bolognaise are wholly unhelpful. Now you can tell me why you think chunky is good for it, but don’t tell me it’s better as a statement of fact. It ain’t better for me!

When you say something can’t do X (as you say a fair bit) you actually mean not very good at doing. Which is an entirely relative term. The D&D could be used for a scientific gritty futuristic horror game. It’s just wouldn’t be very good at it. Starfinder might be better, or better yet Alien. If those systems work for you. However in the unlikely even they don’t, and D&D is your best bet then you mangle D&D into a vehicle for it. Or whichever system you can use.

No one is saying the virtues of other games can’t be celebrated. Just lay off the absolutes.

 

[Aldarc]

Other systems do Leverage well, too. D&D doesn't.

Like Leverage.

What you are reflexively arguing against is the idea that what might work for some people might not work for others.

Ovinomancer has explicitly said this, so I'm confused about what you are actually arguing.

IME, more often then not, when people talk about system matters or games that are design to do X, it's not generally in terms of the BEST or ONLY game that can emulate a genre/game experience. I think such absolute statements are relatively rare outside of strawmanning. Instead, it is more typically about helping to generate a set of games to choose from so that a person/group can decide for themselves according to their own gaming needs and preferences. But part of that requires an awareness of and critically engaging the respective strengths and weaknesses of each game in order to understand what sort of experiences a given game cultivates, whether that's intended or unintended.

The other times when system matters seems to come up in discussion, IME, are when you see either (1) people who are clearly fighting against the system and/or trying to get it do something else it wasn't designed for (i.e., trying to hammer a nail with a screwdriver), and (2) when people are shocked/horrified/amazed to learn that other games have different design approaches to an issue than what they are accustomed to (i.e., the TTRPG equivalent of "culture shock").

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

I see that you are missing a huge point. There is nothing wrong with wanting to do the preparation and planning in intense detail. But if you want to do the preparation and planning in intense detail you do not want to tell a heist style story like Leverage. I don't know whether you've ever seen an episode of Leverage but in Leverage they do not sit round and do all the preparation and planning in intense detail on screen. They show onscreen a basic outline of a plan then basically fast forward through it until it goes pear shaped. And Blades in the Dark is excellent at doing that.

What you are saying is therefore that your group wants a Heist style story that is emphatically not like Leverage and that the reason Blades in the Dark does not work with your group is because it is like Leverage. There is nothing at all wrong with that - but saying "Blades does things like Leverage and my group doesn't want things to be done the way they are in Leverage" is not a rebuttal to "Blades is an excellent match for Leverage". Instead what you are doing is blaming a dog for not being a cat. And then saying that it's a "sweeping statement of opinion" that when your group wants a cat that a fully trained guide dog is a good dog.

 

[TheSword]

I see that you are missing a huge point. There is nothing wrong with wanting to do the preparation and planning in intense detail. But if you want to do the preparation and planning in intense detail you do not want to tell a heist style story like Leverage. I don't know whether you've ever seen an episode of Leverage but in Leverage they do not sit round and do all the preparation and planning in intense detail on screen. They show onscreen a basic outline of a plan then basically fast forward through it until it goes pear shaped. And Blades in the Dark is excellent at doing that.

What you are saying is therefore that your group wants a Heist style story that is emphatically not like Leverage and that the reason Blades in the Dark does not work with your group is because it is like Leverage. There is nothing at all wrong with that - but saying "Blades does things like Leverage and my group doesn't want things to be done the way they are in Leverage" is not a rebuttal to "Blades is an excellent match for Leverage". Instead what you are doing is blaming a dog for not being a cat. And then saying that it's a "sweeping statement of opinion" that when your group wants a cat that a fully trained guide dog is a good dog.

It was an example. I could easily have said as a DM I fundamentally disagree with the resistance mechanic or object to the lack of support materials or published heists, or the fact that I don’t want to translate it from a Victoriana setting. There could be lots of reasons the system isn’t right for me. Those aren’t my reasons. They’re just examples. It doesn’t matter what the reason is.

Telling me that I’m wrong and the system is right is just wasted pixels. It’s all just a matter of taste. Otherwise you would be telling me Leverage the Rpg is best for replicating Leverage. Presumably there is a reason you aren’t. I respect that.

I find it really hard to understand why people are so set on trying to force people to acknowledge that a system is fundamentally better. As if it matters what one person thinks. No system is perfect, they are all going to have pro’s and cons. Talk about the pros and cons sure. But acknowledge that different people will weigh pro’s and cons differently.

 

[pemerton]

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.

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.

<snip>

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.

A lot of what you refer to here has nothing to do with system: being out of print, production values and presentation more generally, translations, etc.

And the fact that you might find a system too complicated or too simple hardly suggest that system doesn't matter.

Also, not all of us are RPGing to tell stories.

D&D could be used for a scientific gritty futuristic horror game. It’s just wouldn’t be very good at it.

I thought you were opposed to these judgements of quality.

But in any event, I don't think D&D could be used for a scientific gritty futuristic horror game. It doesn't have the right components in character building or action resolution.

 

[Neonchameleon]

It was an example. I could easily have said as a DM I fundamentally disagree with the resistance mechanic or object to the lack of support materials or published heists, or the fact that I don’t want to translate it from a Victoriana setting. There could be lots of reasons the system isn’t right for me. Those aren’t my reasons. They’re just examples. It doesn’t matter what the reason is.

Telling me that I’m wrong and the system is right is just wasted pixels. It’s all just a matter of taste. Otherwise you would be telling me Leverage the Rpg is best for replicating Leverage. Presumably there is a reason you aren’t. I respect that.

I find it really hard to understand why people are so set on trying to force people to acknowledge that a system is fundamentally better. As if it matters what one person thinks. No system is perfect, they are all going to have pro’s and cons. Talk about the pros and cons sure. But acknowledge that different people will weigh pro’s and cons differently.

There are reasons the system isn't right for you - and that is fine. But that doesn't make the system other than great at what it does. And your objections all boil down to "I don't want what the system and setting does". There is nothing at all wrong with not wanting what a system does - but those do not in any way mean that the system isn't good at what it does.

The Leverage system is actually excellent at replicating Leverage. It isn't any better at replicating Leverage-style heists than Blades in the Dark because Blades more or less took the heist rules from Leverage and very slightly adapted them. The Blades downtime and turf mechanics don't fit the Leverage setting that well, so Leverage is better for a full Leverage game but the heist rules themselves are every bit as close as D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder. (At many levels Blades really is the offspring of Leverage and Apocalypse World with the addition of Stress).