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

 

[MichaelSomething]

Also, just because a published game did emulate an IP using a particular game engine, doesn't mean that it did it well. This was especially obvious during the times of the d20 System, which made this point abundantly clear. Even by d20 System enthusiasts, a lot of those games were getting flack for their conversions and the limitations of the d20 System in regards to the emulated material. It's hardly a coincidence IMO that Ron Edwards's "System Does Matter" essay came out in 2004 amidst the d20 System publishing bubble.

Who needs Tales of Equrestria when there's Ponyfinder!!

 

[Arilyn]

Funny, I got that game very recenrly as well, althoigh I haven't done more than skim it.

It has gorgeous art!

 

[pemerton]

The system is just a way of working out how likely something is to succeed or fail. Whether that’s jump a gap, kill a monster (or a PC) or drive a cart. Abilities, equipment etc just modifies this in unusual ways.

System is much more than this. Consider:

* Who gets to establish initial fiction? Who gets to establish which characters are in a scene/situation? Who gets to decide what is at stake in a scene/situation?

* What is the range of permissible player-side moves, and who polices that?

* Who gets to establish consequences of player moves? How does this change, if at all, depending on whether the player succeeds or fails on a check?

* Who has access to "off screen" fiction and is able to bring that on-screen or leverage it in other ways?

* When a participant does introduce new content into the shared fiction, what constraints operate on that? This is especially important if the game includes a GM-type participant, whose participation in play is not channelled through a particular protagonist in the shared fiction.​

In 5e D&D, the answer to nearly all those who questions is the GM, and the answer to the question about constraints on the GM is generally none that are not either self-imposed or established by informal social understandings.

There is a big contrast with (say) MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic in this respect. The GM establishes the initial fiction, and can establish what characters are in a scene, but that is rationed (via the Doom Pool). There are mechanical constraints too on the GM introducing new fiction, including consequences: this either has to flow from Doom Pool expenditure or be the result of successful actions by GM-controlled characters. Players other than the GM can access "off screen" fiction, by spending resources and/or succeeding on action declarations.

The answers to these questions aren't irrelevant to running a gritty futuristic sci-fi horror game, either. For instance, the more that the system gives players control over which characters are in a scene/situation, the harder it is to do that sort of horror. The more that the system looks to the GM to establish consequences in all cases, and not just failed checks, the greater the risk it comes across just as the GM hosing the players. The more gonzo the range of permissible player moves, the harder it is to maintain a gritty horror feel. Etc.

These are some of the matters I addressed upthread in my discussion of using Classic Traveller to run a gritty futuristic sci-fi horror scenario. None of them is about the way of working out how likely something is to succeed or fail. The fact that that phrase doesn't even have a personal pronoun that might refer to one or another of the participants in the game shows how inadequate it is as a way of thinking about RPG systems.

 

[TheSword]

System is much more than this. Consider:

* Who gets to establish initial fiction? Who gets to establish which characters are in a scene/situation? Who gets to decide what is at stake in a scene/situation?​

​

* What is the range of permissible player-side moves, and who polices that?​

​

* Who gets to establish consequences of player moves? How does this change, if at all, depending on whether the player succeeds or fails on a check?​

​

* Who has access to "off screen" fiction and is able to bring that on-screen or leverage it in other ways?​

​

* When a participant does introduce new content into the shared fiction, what constraints operate on that? This is especially important if the game includes a GM-type participant, whose participation in play is not channelled through a particular protagonist in the shared fiction.​

In 5e D&D, the answer to nearly all those who questions is the GM, and the answer to the question about constraints on the GM is generally none that are not either self-imposed or established by informal social understandings.

There is a big contrast with (say) MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic in this respect. The GM establishes the initial fiction, and can establish what characters are in a scene, but that is rationed (via the Doom Pool). There are mechanical constraints too on the GM introducing new fiction, including consequences: this either has to flow from Doom Pool expenditure or be the result of successful actions by GM-controlled characters. Players other than the GM can access "off screen" fiction, by spending resources and/or succeeding on action declarations.

The answers to these questions aren't irrelevant to running a gritty futuristic sci-fi horror game, either. For instance, the more that the system gives players control over which characters are in a scene/situation, the harder it is to do that sort of horror. The more that the system looks to the GM to establish consequences in all cases, and not just failed checks, the greater the risk it comes across just as the GM hosing the players. The more gonzo the range of permissible player moves, the harder it is to maintain a gritty horror feel. Etc.

These are some of the matters I addressed upthread in my discussion of using Classic Traveller to run a gritty futuristic sci-fi horror scenario. None of them is about the way of working out how likely something is to succeed or fail. The fact that that phrase doesn't even have a personal pronoun that might refer to one or another of the participants in the game shows how inadequate it is as a way of thinking about RPG systems.

Yes you are of course right. It is possible to have a game system to generate the plot elements that a DM would typically arrange to delight and entertain their players. Yes.

I revise my statement to be “in the most games the system is just a way of working out how likely something is to succeed or fail. Whether that’s jump a gap, kill a monster (or a PC) or drive a cart. Abilities, equipment etc just modifies this in unusual ways.”

I disagree that horror is better with player control. Part of the experience of being scared is not being control.

I don’t believe how you generate the story is any more than just a personal preference. It is not inherently better or worse.

I’m going to regret this but can you give an example of your system leads to a scenario that is more horrific/scary?

 

[Fenris-77]

@pemerton is talking about how a given game apportions agency, which is not at all what you seem to be responding to. It's also fundamental to people's enjoyment of various games, or their lack of enjoyment. It's a big part of what a game system is, it is very different from system to system, and also has nothing to do with how likely something is to occur in the diagetic frame, which I find an entirely unsatisfactory and incomplete definition of what a RPG system is and what is accomplished though its use at the table.

 

[Arilyn]

Games have default expectations about characters. Nobilis, for example, is about very potent beings, god like. The rules of the game, therefore, are wrapped around these expectations. Even Fate, which is a very flexible generic system assumes a certain type of play.

If I want to do investigative play, I'd turn to a Gumshoe game, because it excels at this. If I want super heroes, I have a lot of good choices these days, that do it better than trying to get 5e to work. Mutants and Masterminds is based off d20, but has been greatly stretched and altered.

Class and level based games don't work for a lot of genres. And as pemerton says, if you are looking to delve into a game that is not GM focussed, it's necessary to look beyond the more traditional mainstream games. Sorcerer could not be done with D20, Fate, Cortex, Genesys, etc. It has a very specific game play, where system matters a lot.

We need system to matter, or the hobby would not be as varied and rich as it is.

 

[pemerton]

Yes you are of course right. It is possible to have a game system to generate the plot elements that a DM would typically arrange to delight and entertain their players. Yes.

I revise my statement to be “in the most games the system is just a way of working out how likely something is to succeed or fail. Whether that’s jump a gap, kill a monster (or a PC) or drive a cart. Abilities, equipment etc just modifies this in unusual ways.”

I disagree that horror is better with player control. Part of the experience of being scared is not being control.

I don’t believe how you generate the story is any more than just a personal preference. It is not inherently better or worse.

I’m going to regret this but can you give an example of your system leads to a scenario that is more horrific/scary?

To me this suggests that you haven't understood my post.

Let's look at just one issue: who gets to leverage offscreen fiction?

I'll provide one example, which is taken from a sidebar in the 3E D&D module Bastion of Broken Souls with the heading "The Second String". I don't have my copy ready to hand, so I can't remember all the names of the characters. But what the sidebar says, roughly, is that if the PCs kill a particular NPC, whose function in the "plot" of the module is to be used by the GM to drive the players towards certain goals and decision-points, then the GM should introduce the "second string" of NPCs - a group of 3 balors - to perform the same function.

That instruction to the GM only makes sense because the 3E system, like the AD&D 2nd ed and 5e systems, takes for granted that the GM has unfettered authority over what is happening offscreen, and when and how it can be brought onscreen.

That assumption is not part of Moldvay Basic D&D and Gygax's AD&D: these assume that, once the dungeon key is written, the GM can only introduce new content during a delve via the wandering monster rules. What happens between delves is a bit more vague - and in fact I think there are contradictions between Gygax's PHB and his DMG in this respect, perhaps reflecting his evolving thinking - but the limit on GM authority during a delve is enough to illustrate the point that the assumption is not universal.

MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic doesn't have anything like a wandering monster or dungeon key process as part of the system, but also imposes constraints on how the GM can access the offscreen and bring it onscreen, and gives players authority to do so also.

These allocations of authority are as much a feature of 5e D&D as other systems that have similar or different such allocations. The fact that they are invisible to you suggests to me that you don't have much experience with varying them. That helps to explain why you tend to doubt that system matters, and also while you seem to frame all RPGing through the lens of the players working through the GM's pre-established story.

 

[Manbearcat]

That assumption is not part of Moldvay Basic D&D and Gygax's AD&D: these assume that, once the dungeon key is written, the GM can only introduce new content during a delve via the wandering monster rules.

I think what is extremely illustrative of the point here is consider the implications on delves when you do but one thing:

Sub out the Wandering Monster "Clock" (and all of the integrated machinery including tight time-tracking in Exploration Turns, Rest, Reaction, Morale) and sub in GM extrapolation of the setting and abstraction of time.

The same thing goes when you sub in Torchbearer's Light and Condition Clocks (and all of the integrated machinery). Its MUCH closer to the experience of Moldvay Basic, though certainly not the same. And neither are anything like GM setting extrapolation and abstraction of time.

 

[TheSword]

To me this suggests that you haven't understood my post.

Let's look at just one issue: who gets to leverage offscreen fiction?

I'll provide one example, which is taken from a sidebar in the 3E D&D module Bastion of Broken Souls with the heading "The Second String". I don't have my copy ready to hand, so I can't remember all the names of the characters. But what the sidebar says, roughly, is that if the PCs kill a particular NPC, whose function in the "plot" of the module is to be used by the GM to drive the players towards certain goals and decision-points, then the GM should introduce the "second string" of NPCs - a group of 3 balors - to perform the same function.

That instruction to the GM only makes sense because the 3E system, like the AD&D 2nd ed and 5e systems, takes for granted that the GM has unfettered authority over what is happening offscreen, and when and how it can be brought onscreen.

That assumption is not part of Moldvay Basic D&D and Gygax's AD&D: these assume that, once the dungeon key is written, the GM can only introduce new content during a delve via the wandering monster rules. What happens between delves is a bit more vague - and in fact I think there are contradictions between Gygax's PHB and his DMG in this respect, perhaps reflecting his evolving thinking - but the limit on GM authority during a delve is enough to illustrate the point that the assumption is not universal.

MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic doesn't have anything like a wandering monster or dungeon key process as part of the system, but also imposes constraints on how the GM can access the offscreen and bring it onscreen, and gives players authority to do so also.

These allocations of authority are as much a feature of 5e D&D as other systems that have similar or different such allocations. The fact that they are invisible to you suggests to me that you don't have much experience with varying them. That helps to explain why you tend to doubt that system matters, and also while you seem to frame all RPGing through the lens of the players working through the GM's pre-established story.

I understand Agency. There are degrees of it. Not everyone needs to have it to the extent you personally expect.

Sorry Permerton. You didn’t answer my question. Or certainly not in a clear way. How does your suggested system help increase horror/fear factor?

 

[Fenris-77]

I'm not convinced you understand agency, how a system apportions it a a table, or what the various signifiers are in a game that indexes a particular division.