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

 

[TheSword]

Why can't it be both? It's not exactly a secret that the OSR crowd was not super thrilled with 5e D&D despite WotC attempting to woe them over,* and one of the reasons was "combat as sport vs. combat as war."

* ...and then promptly abandoned them once WotC discovered they had a massive hit on their hands and didn't need the OSR crowd.


Can? Sure. But that doesn't mean that 5e doesn't tend to overwhelmingly treat combat more as sport rather than war and design things accordingly.

I’m not sure I understand your sport vs war piece?

 

[TheSword]

It's evident in conversations I have had here and elsewhere that there are large swathe of folks who define what a roleplaying game is or can be in relation to the culture of play engendered by games like AD&D Second Edition/ Fifth Edition D&D. That when encountering a new game they think they already know how to play/run it.

I have personally experienced this phenomenon at live tables numerous times.

Can you expand on what that culture is?

 

[Morrus]

is that because d&d adventures are traditionally designed that way because of XP system that’s partly phased out.

My opinion hasn’t changed since 20 minutes ago.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

The essay by Jon Peterson is helpful in that it illuminates something that is common in most field; nothing is truly new under the sun.

As far back as the birth of the hobby, people have argued about whether the system* matters, and whether the first system (or the predominant system) conditions players to approach other systems with certain expectations. In the 70s and early 80s, these arguments were held at tables, in magazines, and at conventions; later, these same arguments were later held via BBS or usenet, still later through various websites and forums (including this one).

Yet, the hobby continues. And the arguments recycle periodically, sometimes given different names, sometimes with enhanced vigor, sometimes with science-y sounding terminology to give cover to the same debate, yet the argument is essentially unchanged.

At a certain point, many gamers move past these scarred theoretical battlefields to concentrate on the joys of actual play.

Does the system matter? Maybe. A little. But not that much. There is not some deep, structuralist meaning; a need to find the universal grammar of TTRPGs that is just waiting for Noam Chomsky. Most games easily allow modification, changes, additions, and so on; the elevation of the "system" (of the rules dictating play) often obscures the actuality of the play experience. The banal observation that people get used to the game they play the most does not seem to prevent other games from being played, either.**

Enjoy the games you play. That is, as ever, the only thing that matters. Not the system.



*Using this as a loose term for aTTRPG set of rules.

**Very few people would say that playing a sport conditions people such that they cannot learn to play other sports with different rules.

 

[TheSword]

The essay by Jon Peterson is helpful in that it illuminates something that is common in most field; nothing is truly new under the sun.

As far back as the birth of the hobby, people have argued about whether the system* matters, and whether the first system (or the predominant system) conditions players to approach other systems with certain expectations. In the 70s and early 80s, these arguments were held at tables, in magazines, and at conventions; later, these same arguments were later held via BBS or usenet, still later through various websites and forums (including this one).

Yet, the hobby continues. And the arguments recycle periodically, sometimes given different names, sometimes with enhanced vigor, sometimes with science-y sounding terminology to give cover to the same debate, yet the argument is essentially unchanged.

At a certain point, many gamers move past these scarred theoretical battlefields to concentrate on the joys of actual play.

Does the system matter? Maybe. A little. But not that much. There is not some deep, structuralist meaning; a need to find the universal grammar of TTRPGs that is just waiting for Noam Chomsky. Most games easily allow modification, changes, additions, and so on; the elevation of the "system" (of the rules dictating play) often obscures the actuality of the play experience. The banal observation that people get used to the game they play the most does not seem to prevent other games from being played, either.**

Enjoy the games you play. That is, as ever, the only thing that matters. Not the system.



*Using this as a loose term for aTTRPG set of rules.

**Very few people would say that playing a sport conditions people such that they cannot learn to play other sports with different rules.

I agree. It does a little. But it doesn’t have any where near as much influence as the kinds of stories you’re telling, or most of all the quality of the group you’re playing with.

 

[Umbran]

The essay by Jon Peterson is helpful in that it illuminates something that is common in most field; nothing is truly new under the sun.

As far back as the birth of the hobby, people have argued about whether the system* matters, and whether the first system (or the predominant system) conditions players to approach other systems with certain expectations.

To have this be an argument would seem to me to entail a lack of understanding of people. People form habits of thought. Of course they are conditioned with certain expectations. That hardly seems worth arguing over.

What may be more useful is discussion what you need to do to break folks out of their expectations in a useful way before they try a game that defies their expectations.

**Very few people would say that playing a sport conditions people such that they cannot learn to play other sports with different rules.

Yes, but dismissing the point means you don't discuss how to teach them.

 

[Morrus]

**Very few people would say that playing a sport conditions people such that they cannot learn to play other sports with different rules.

Nobody said people cannot learn new approaches. That’s a straw man. The essay suggests that often they do not, not that they cannot. Of course they can.

 

[Aldarc]

I’m not sure I understand your sport vs war piece?

There is an old thread (2012) on ENWorld that discusses it here. The idea also gets referenced and rephrased in various ways in the Principia Apocrypha, a pdf pamphlet essentially on common principles of OSR games. You are welcome to familiarize yourself with the principles on your own time.

I have no doubt that you will object after reading through that - "But 5e can do that too!" - but just because it can doesn't mean that it does with any regularity or effort, which is one reason why OSR has mostly walked away from 5e.

More often than not, 5e falls back on combat as sport in its principles, design, and teaching, and people often treat it as the typical mode, with the OSR crowd generally regarding 5e as more in the "combat as sport" mode that was prevalent from 3e onwards (if not 2e). Worth considering: If 5e can do "combat as war" and follow other OSR principles, then why has the OSR crowd largely ignored 5e and not adopted it?

 

[TheSword]

There is an old thread (2012) on ENWorld that discusses it here. The idea also gets referenced and rephrased in various ways in the Principia Apocrypha, a pdf pamphlet essentially on common principles of OSR games. You are welcome to familiarize yourself with the principles on your own time.

I have no doubt that you will object after reading through that - "But 5e can do that too!" - but just because it can doesn't mean that it does with any regularity or effort, which is one reason why OSR has mostly walked away from 5e.

More often than not, 5e falls back on combat as sport in its principles, design, and teaching, and people often treat it as the typical mode, with the OSR crowd generally regarding 5e as more in the "combat as sport" mode that was prevalent from 3e onwards (if not 2e). Worth considering: If 5e can do "combat as war" and follow other OSR principles, then why has the OSR crowd largely ignored 5e and not adopted it?

Thanks for the article references. I definitely like the concept of combat as War and prefer my games to play that way. I’m really interested to see if a few of the optional rules in DMG like lingering injuries, and slow healing move people in that direction.

I can’t help feeling that the biggest difference in the example the OP gave though was as follows. In the Sport example there was a balanced bee encounter. In the War example there were hundreds of giant bees that made combat impossible. It wasn’t that combat would be difficult... it was ruled out. That is a product of encounter design not rule design (which is exactly what you guessed I would say).

I just think that the OSR community is more willing to accept that inherent unfairness than a typical player would and thrive on the challenge that presets. Is that a rules issue? Possibly with an XP system that rewards combat. I’m not sure Milestone levelling hasn’t dealt with that issue though.

 

[Aldarc]

Thanks for the article references. I definitely like the concept of combat as War and prefer my games to play that way. I’m really interested to see if a few of the optional rules in DMG like lingering injuries, and slow healing move people in that direction.

I can’t help feeling that the biggest difference in the example the OP gave though was as follows. In the Sport example there was a balanced bee encounter. In the War example there were hundreds of giant bees that made combat impossible. It wasn’t that combat would be difficult... it was ruled out. That is a product of encounter design not rule design (which is exactly what you guessed I would say).

I just think that the OSR community is more willing to accept that inherent unfairness than a typical player would and thrive on the challenge that presets. Is that a rules issue? Possibly with an XP system that rewards combat. I’m not sure Milestone levelling hasn’t dealt with that issue though.

Much like @Morrus, I answered your question as "both" rather than "either/or" and classes, races, etc. are also arguably designed in 5e with combat as sport in mind.