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

 

[TwoSix]

There is a spectrum between ‘does exactly what you want’ and ‘does nothing of what you want’ and that no roleplaying game does nothing of what you want because they all at least have a player character even if nothing else about the game is right. All we debate is where on the spectrum a particular game system falls... but that will vary for every person. How good a game system is depends on how close it matches ‘exactly what you want.’

I think you're getting pushback because you're arguing that quality (being good or bad) is inherently subjective; I think a lot of people would argue we can make determinations of quality on more objective metrics.

I'm not saying I know what those metrics are, but most criticism of anything is rooted in the idea that there's more to evaluating a work than our purely subjective reception of it.

 

[TheSword]

I think you're getting pushback because you're arguing that quality (being good or bad) is inherently subjective; I think a lot of people would argue we can make determinations of quality on more objective metrics.

I'm not saying I know what those metrics are, but most criticism of anything is rooted in the idea that there's more to evaluating a work than our purely subjective reception of it.

That’s fair. I just think so many of these things are subjective that the things that aren’t don’t really count for much.

I know from precious threads that there are elements of a rpg product or system that I consider important that other people think in this thread are irrelevant or at worst actively bad - associated published modules for instance - that they see as anathema. Without them the system just isn’t gonna work for me. For them it’s a better system without them. Different strokes for different folks.

There are as many differences as there are people i suspect. The need to assert preference with a claimed backing in the system is why edition wars can be so recriminating.

 

[prabe]

I think you're getting pushback because you're arguing that quality (being good or bad) is inherently subjective; I think a lot of people would argue we can make determinations of quality on more objective metrics.

I'm not saying I know what those metrics are, but most criticism of anything is rooted in the idea that there's more to evaluating a work than our purely subjective reception of it.

I don't disagree that there is a point to which quality is less subjective, but past a threshold of competence it really does come to a matter of taste/preference. If you know fiction or food or music, you can tell when a professionally competent writer or cook or performer is just not to your taste, and when they're just bad at what they're doing.

I don't think there are precise metrics for the sorts of things people talk about on these boards--it might be possible to say accurately that one game has more [feature] than another, but I don't know of any real way to quantify it. I think this makes the metallurgical metaphor deployed earlier in the thread ... non applicable, and probably weak.

Are there compromises in D&D 5E? Yeah, but given they were making a concerted effort to collect the best game elements (and fan bases) of the various prior editions that's not surprising. I think they did a pretty good job, but other people have other opinions. I'm running 5E by choice, not because D&D is a default I can't get past.

 

[Aldarc]

I was using it as examples of why one persons claim that a person should use DW, Fate, Traveller, D&D or PF2 might not be the best vehicle for some people. Despite its advocates raving about it and getting pissy with people who disagree. System does matter to me, just not as much as other things.

Incidentally Rob Donoghue, one of the creators/writers for Fate, actually has "gotten pissy with people" who believe that Fate can do anything precisely because (1) system matters and (2) the Fate system is not appropriate for running every type of game.

The point of specifying what a system is good at is so you can work out what will fit what you want.

This is the underlying point about system matters to me. I believe @hawkeyefan made a car comparison earlier, which is pretty apt. Many people don't necessarily care too much about the car - myself included - apart from the fact that it works, it's affordable, it's the right color, and it suits their daily needs (i.e., getting to work, room for family, etc.). Obviously the design and make matters, but it's an important to recognize that your Mini Cooper is not designed for off-road wilderness treks, hauling massive cargo, or top speed acceleration and handling. Automobiles are designed for different things. Can you go off-road, haul cargo, or accelerate to high speeds with your Mini Cooper? Sure, but if you want do any of these things regularly (and safely) without breaking-down your car, then you would potentially be better buying something else than a Mini Cooper.

We could expand this conversation to a lot of different products - e.g., computers, electronics, kitchen ware and appliances, hardware tools - and the underlying principle would be the same. It's about understanding the strengths and weaknesses, pros and cons, as well as the functionality and quality of the product.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

This is the underlying point about system matters to me. I believe @hawkeyefan made a car comparison earlier, which is pretty apt. Many people don't necessarily care too much about the car - myself included - apart from the fact that it works, it's affordable, it's the right color, and it suits their daily needs (i.e., getting to work, room for family, etc.). Obviously the design and make matters, but it's an important to recognize that your Mini Cooper is not designed for off-road wilderness treks, hauling massive cargo, or top speed acceleration and handling. Automobiles are designed for different things.

Yes, automobiles are designed for different things. And yet ...

If there is a need for a family automobile in the United States, your best bet is a minivan. That is perfectly designed family hauler. Despite the fact that this is so amazingly-well designed for the task, families no longer buy them. At best, they buy SUVs, which are compromised in terms of space in comparison.

For that matter, look at the large numbers of pickup trucks in the US. I mean, sure, maybe Jake needs help moving this weekend. But the sheer number of massive, heavy-duty pickup trucks (especially in some areas of the country) seems to outnumber, by vast margins, the use-case for them. The number one selling vehicle in the United States last year was the Ford F-Series truck. Number 2? Chevy Silverado. 3? Ram Pickup.

If I choose to drive a manual early-2000 German convertible roadster as my daily driver, I am not doing so because it was designed to be the best at that task. In fact, I'd say that in terms of comfort, reliability, technology, and efficiency, it is not a very good choice at all. But because I rank fun and driving experience as my top goals, it would be my go-to.

The automobile market argues for precisely the opposite of what you are saying. It shows exactly how disparate preferences in multiple areas are more important than a singular focus on how a design for a specific task outweighs all other considerations. More importantly, much like an old man yelling at clouds, I can't scream at the people that they are wrong for buying SUVs or Pickup Trucks for their daily drives to work and shopping; just like they can't yell at me for loving stick shifts and ICE even though I am fully aware of EVs.

Well, people can and do yell at each other, but it doesn't change those opinions.

Again, for the underlying point (yes, there is a difference between an ICE and an EV, horsepower does matter, if you want to offroad for real- you need to change out a lot of your vehicle incl. the gearing ratios and the undercarriage, ec.) it is a truism to say that mechanics of the car you drive matters; but it is no less true to observe that people happily buy and use cars and saying that they are using it wrong, or that they should be driving something else (that they don't want to) is rarely a successful method of persusasion.

 

[Fenris-77]

The argument that quality is inherently subjective seems unfeasible to me, both in terms of general quality and also in terms of quality related to a specific gaming task. Some systems are objectively better written, tighter, and contain less wobbly bits than others. In terms of specific tasks, I think it's trivially obvious that some systems do some types of games better than others mostly because, save the generic systems, games are designed with a particular gaming task in mind.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Yes, but game systems are usually not simple binary systems. They have pros and cons. I’m amazed that you think everything can be reduced down to good or bad.

THIS IS A STRAWMAN COMING FROM YOU. IT IS, SO FAR AS I CAN TELL ONLY YOU TALKING ABOUT A SINGLE AXIS OF GOOD/BAD. NOW PLEASE STOP.

Things can be good at things. They can be bad at them. And these things can match what you want, or they can be a mismatch.

To use an example from up the thread, Blades in the Dark is good at Leverage style heists. No one is saying it's the perfect game for a gear and detail focused dungeon crawl. You, personally, @TheSword seem to think that because that's not the game you want to play this is some sort of rebuttal to Blades being good at Leverage-style heists. It is, so far as I can tell, only you that even wants to reduce games into both good and bad.

But I trust that even you would agree that F.A.T.A.L. was an objectively bad game both in terms of what it does and in terms of whether what it does matches its claimed goal of being "realistic and historically/mythically accurate". Do you, @TheSword genuinely and sincerely believe that it is impossible to say that FATAL is a bad game?

 

[TheSword]

THIS IS A STRAWMAN COMING FROM YOU. IT IS, SO FAR AS I CAN TELL ONLY YOU TALKING ABOUT A SINGLE AXIS OF GOOD/BAD. NOW PLEASE STOP.

Things can be good at things. They can be bad at them. And these things can match what you want, or they can be a mismatch.

To use an example from up the thread, Blades in the Dark is good at Leverage style heists. No one is saying it's the perfect game for a gear and detail focused dungeon crawl. You, personally, @TheSword seem to think that because that's not the game you want to play this is some sort of rebuttal to Blades being good at Leverage-style heists. It is, so far as I can tell, only you that even wants to reduce games into both good and bad.

But I trust that even you would agree that F.A.T.A.L. was an objectively bad game both in terms of what it does and in terms of whether what it does matches its claimed goal of being "realistic and historically/mythically accurate". Do you, @TheSword genuinely and sincerely believe that it is impossible to say that FATAL is a bad game?

To be honest I don’t appreciate the block capitals and bold. Can you moderate your tone please, or disengage from me. I’m replying politely to you, to try and explain.

A particular system will have multiple good and bad elements and the value each person puts on these will determine how people rank it for the task at hand. They will be able to compare overall though. Action resolution may be important to you, the way wealth works in the system may not.

It’s a single axis determined by many different subjective judgments on its qualities that will vary person to person. I think I was pretty explicit in that regard. When I say I think X game is better than Y, that’s personal to me. It doesn’t mean that’s the same for everyone. It won’t be based on a single mechanic or other.

 

[Manbearcat]

With respect, if someone can’t help but smuggle in their own subjective preferences and is therefore incapable of evaluating an RPG based solely on the execution of its design imperatives, that doesn’t say anything about the game itself. That’s the reviewers problem (and it would be clear bo matter what they were reviewing).

I neither like nor play 5e D&D. But it’s abundantly clear what it’s design imperatives were:

* Court as much of the lapsed OSR as possible while simultaneously courting as many lapsed 3.x players as possible.

* Run an unprecedented “open playtest” with surveys (that push toward a particular design) and a roughly “on-display” (but not transparent) iterative process that alleges to incorporate the data from those (slanted) surveys. This will be a massive advertising and good-faith coup.

* Embrace the storytelling zeitgeist of the late 80s and 90s that 2e embraced up through 3.x and the Pathfinder Adventure Path model.

* Draft a Basic version of the game that superficially harkens to Basic D&D.

* Make the game extremely amenable to GM Force/Illusionism and Adventure Paths so (a) casual players are easily on-boarded by allowing them to participate passively in a meta plot and (b) more active players can feel like they’re driving play when they’re mostly being railroaded by GMs deft at including non-metaplot sensitive aspects of players’ input into elaborate theatricality and Illusionism.

* Make the texts and the game nostalgic and as familiar and as functional at Hexcrawling and Sandboxing as Expert/RC/AD&D.

* Reign in spellcasters from their 3.x zenith and throttle up Fighters from their 3.x nadir.

* Embrace the DIY and Heterogeneity spirits of yore by advertising those principles while intentionally neither fastening down nor deeply encoding a significant swathe of the ruleset.

++++++++

I mean. It’s trivial to conclude that the entire iterative, advertising, and finished product of D&D 5e overwhelmingly did what it set out to do.

As a cultural phenomenon it’s brilliantly conceived and objectively successful.

As a game it’s objectively successful.

This is coming from someone who doesn’t like the game holistically at all and who likes only a few aspects of its constituent parts (I spoke about those during the playtest phase and I feel the same way today).

The exact same thing can be done for Blades in the Dark (but I won’t do because I’m already long on word count) whether one likes the design imperatives and finished product or not!

 

[Neonchameleon]

To be honest I don’t appreciate the block capitals and bold. Can you moderate your tone please, or disengage from me. I’m replying politely to you, to try and explain.

A particular system will have multiple good and bad elements and the value each person puts on these will determine how people rank it for the task at hand. They will be able to compare overall though. Action resolution may be important to you, the way wealth works in the system may not.

It’s a single axis determined by many different subjective judgments on its qualities that will vary person to person. I think I was pretty explicit in that regard. When I say I think X game is better than Y, that’s personal to me. It doesn’t mean that’s the same for everyone. It won’t be based on a single mechanic or other.

Thank you for at least trying to reply to me - although I still feel the frustration that lead to the block capitals because you appear to be coming from a perspective that is different from almost everyone else in the thread, attributing your own position to them, and then blaming them for the problems with your own position.

When you claim "It’s a single axis determined by many different subjective judgments" this is something coming from you personally and that explicitly contradicts what you are replying to. It does not bear any resemblance to I think anyone else in this thread. I know that rather using the single axis scale you use I use at least a three axis scale, with the main axes being:

• Does this game set out to do something interesting?
• Does it do it well?
• Is it something I want to use and if so when?

Dread, with its Jenga tower, is a good example of something I consider desirable and that does it well - but is normally not something I want to use unless I'm pulling out a one-shot game either as a filler or for Halloween. Because I do not (unlike you, seemingly) use a single axis scale, Dread has a place on my bookshelf but doesn't often come out.

And sometimes it can be based on a single mechanic. A good example would be the notorious attempt to play I think it was Phoenix Command among one of my groups (I wasn't there for that session). Apparently they gave up after spending an hour and a half resolving two gunshots. It was a dealbreaker for a game selling itself on realistic gun combat.

But all your comments about "you think everything can be reduced down to good or bad" are based on putting things on a single axis. You appear to be the only person in the thread who does this. Almost everyone else I can see is instead saying "What is this good at and when is it appropriate to use" because we do not try to reduce everything down to a single axis the way you have just said you do.