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

 

[Aldarc]

Though as I said, I didn’t say system doesn’t matter, I said it’s less important than other factors. The Adventure Paths/stories and the Group mattered more.

You may be misunderstanding what is meant by "matters" when it comes to "system matters." You seem to be reading 'matters' as a factor of "to whom" rather than its "effect."

You mean between most systems, not just those systems.

I mean these systems. It may be prevalent in most systems, but I mean these much as I wrote.

 

[Dire Bare]

D&D has, of course, evolved over the years in system and most common playstyle that the system encourages. And, especially back in the old-school days, the rules were confusing and loose enough that different play styles emerged just from folks trying to understand how to play.

But, on the surface at least, we were all playing the same game, D&D. Today with 5+ editions under our belts and dozens (hundreds? thousands?) of OSR games that try to embody a specific style of D&D play . . . but it's all still D&D on the surface . . . it's understandable I think for folks to learn one system/style of D&D and mistakenly assume that all D&D plays that way (the various editions, the various OSR games, and other D&D-adjacent games).

I think the variety of playing styles within the D&D circus tent, and all of the other wonderful not-D&D games out there, is a beautiful thing . . . but I also think that folks making assumptions on "how-to-play" based on their first D&D experience is understandable and normal. If you are a DM/GM starting up with a new gaming group, it behooves you to survey your players' past experiences and then maybe talk about expectations and style of the game you are going to run . . . and then good-naturedly roll with it when folks still make wrong assumptions during play. As long as everybody remembers that they are playing a game and doesn't get too worked up over "mistakes", it'll all work out in the end.

 

[wingsandsword]

Yes, system matters.

That's why we have different preferences of editions, some of us play 5e, some play 3.x, some play OD&D, some play AD&D 1e, some play everything in between.

However, I will say that there's a reason that D&D has been so widely adapted to other purposes. . .because while it's not the best possible game for every situation, it usually works at least adequately.

That was the whole point behind so many of the d20 games of the early-to-mid 2000's, that it's quicker and easier for gamers to learn and play a game that's much like a game they already know. . .and if I may be quite blunt, a LOT of games out there have been just awful with their rules.

More than once have I bought a game and thought it had an awesome setting, but the included system was unplayable or generally awful. Designing a game system and designing a setting are two completely different skill sets, and there have been games with good rules, games with good settings, but rarely one with both.

A lot of d20 adaptations of games, like Call of Cthulhu, may not have been perfect, but they were pretty good. . .they were pretty good at getting people to pick up games they never would have looked at before, and they were pretty good at adapting the existing system to the setting and making it work better than whatever they'd try to cobble together on their own.

 

[TheSword]

You may be misunderstanding what is meant by "matters" when it comes to "system matters." You seem to be reading 'matters' as a factor of "to whom" rather than its "effect."


I mean these systems. It may be prevalent in most systems, but I mean these much as I wrote.

I mean it in terms of impact on ensuring an enjoyable gaming session as stated in my post.

All such judgements will be subjective so I can see how you would misunderstand this as relating to a person.

Then I will make it clear that most systems have an element of pre-written stories whether by a GM or publisher. There is a reason for that.

 

[Haffrung]

While the focus here is of course on OG games, I was amused by the idea of D&D being predicated on “the seeking” and combat as something to be gotten past as quickly as possible, similar to ways I’ve heard OD&D and AD&D described as being basically puzzle-boxes where combat was an obstacle to be avoided. Yet (and I don’t mean this as a judgment for or against), the main discussion particularly online over the past twenty years of the d20 era has been combat and combat optimization. Even within D&D, system matters!

(I’ve noted before that I’ve played since my childhood in late 1st edition but didn’t run any games until the tail end of 2nd edition and then into 3.0/3.5, so my own views on system generations is in-between)

Combat optimization became a central element with the parallel release of 3rd edition and the growth of online forums. The fact some communities of longtime players intensely disliked 3e, to the point where you were not allowed to even mention that edition, shows that the game was not always focussed on combat for everyone.

And when WotC carried out the biggest RPG market research and playtest in history for Next, the development leads remarked repeatedly that they were surprised by the results showing combat and number-crunching optimization were not the big draw for most players.

So 3e =/= historic D&D norms and online discourse has never been representative of the wider D&D culture.

 

[Aldarc]

I mean it in terms of impact on ensuring an enjoyable gaming session as stated in my post.

All such judgements will be subjective so I can see how you would misunderstand this as relating to a person.

Which is not what the 'matters' in "system matters" means, with yet again an emphasis on enjoyment seemingly implying that your central reference here is "to whom" in relation to enjoyment.

Then I will make it clear that most systems have an element of pre-written stories whether by a GM or publisher. There is a reason for that.

There are definitely reasons for that, though not necessarily the one you presume.

 

[Morrus]

I think system matters was an unfortunate choice of words. I think something like game design matters gets the point across more effectively because we are talking about games, not just systems.

Which is not what the 'matters' in "system matters" means, with yet again an emphasis on enjoyment seemingly implying that your central reference here is "to whom" in relation to enjoyment.

Is this thread now a discussion on the exact -- but, importantly, separate -- meanings of the word "system" and "matters"? I think we've reached peak internet, folks! We did it!

 

[Aldarc]

Is this thread now a discussion on the exact -- but, importantly, separate -- meanings of the word "system" and "matters"? I think we've reached peak internet, folks! We did it!

Yeah, I think it's a general misunderstanding (or possibly equivocation) of what is meant by "system matters." I didn't think that hitting 'peak internet' was necessary for this thread, but here we are. We're at the peak, and there's no where to go but down from here.

 

[TheSword]

Which is not what the 'matters' in "system matters" means, with yet again an emphasis on enjoyment seemingly implying that your central reference here is "to whom" in relation to enjoyment.


There are definitely reasons for that, though not necessarily the one you presume.

I think the question of whether the system creates an enjoyable experience for players, be they simulationist, gamist or narrativist (if that’s a word) is exactly what the post is about.

Enjoyment and satisfaction are the holy grail of all games. Else why bother. Outside the corner cases of teaching kids interpersonal skills. (Incidentally one of my players does this and gets paid a decent amount of money to do it, go figure!)

There are definitely reasons for that, though not necessarily the one you presume.

The same reason for most things that are supplied in large numbers... Demand.

 

[Aldarc]

I think the question of whether the system creates an enjoyable experience for players, be they simulationist, gamist or narrativist (if that’s a word) is exactly what the post is about.

Enjoyment and satisfaction are the holy grail of all games. Else why bother. Outside the corner cases of teaching kids interpersonal skills. (Incidentally one of my players does this and gets paid a decent amount of money to do it, go figure!)

Sure, enjoyment matters, but that's not what "system matters" is about, Charlie Brown.