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

 

[pemerton]

Hmm. I think that raises some interesting questions. I don't think anyone would define adding a single subclass, or a race, or some optional rules, as somehow changing the game into being "not 5e". But how far can we change a system until it's not recognizable as itself? Are the changes purely limited to resolution mechanics, or does a change in implied setting or genre also make a game "no longer X"?

Answering this question is mostly going to be about stipulation than discovery, I think.

But that doesn't mean there are no meaningful claims in the neighbourhood. And @Campbell has already made one, probably the most important one, in this thread: for many "system matters" purposes, the original PF, D&D 3E, D&D 2nd ed AD&D, D&D 5e, and WHFRP are the same system. They all use basically the same allocation of responsibilities, the same processes of play and produce broadly similar play experiences as a result.

In this sense, 5e D&D can be used to play gritty futuristic sci-fi horror - all the grit will come from GM narration and framing, with the action resolution mechanics just coming along for the ride. But in this case it won't be true that 5e D&D is particularly bad at it, either.

But because @TheSword said that 5e D&D would be bad at it, I took the focus to be less on those underlying fundamentals and more on the existence, within the system, of appropriately coloured game elements. And once we focus on those then I agree with @Ovinomancer - 5e D&D doesn't have them. You have to write them yourself.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The quoted bit wasn't so much about system not mattering (or mattering) as it was about why one might intentionally choose a system someone else thinks of as inferior. Specifically, the reasons I gave are pretty much my reasons for choosing to play D&D 5E--because the "system matters" conversation almost always seems to be about what D&D can and cannot do. About the only thing missing is that I wanted to game with new people, and I wanted to game at a FLGS, so the most-popular game (which I happen to like well enough) is, I think, a reasonable and rational choice.

And I have had the experience of playing different games with the same people at the table, and the experience around the table being roughly the same. I don't know that they were quite so different from each other as the games you played, but they were pretty far-ranging. Part of it was that the guy who was the almost-constant GM at that table had ... tendencies, so the fiction tended to end up in similar shapes and places. Do I think your experience, as you described it, is possible? I absolutely do, and I don't doubt for a moment you experienced it.

Well, yes, conversation here usually ends up talking about D&D, because this is the largest D&D fan site on the web. It's nearly inevitable that it's part of the discussion, because even if it's initially avoided in a discussion, it gets brought in by someone who's mostly or only familiar with D&D (fan site!) because that's the vast majority of posters. It's basically inevitable.

There have, still, been a few discussions about the relative merits of other systems in comparison, at least for a bit until D&D intrudes.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Thank you for making my point.
That people make sweeping factually incorrect statements like this.

Saying this without evidence is just handwaving.

Show me, using the PHB, how I would run a computer hacking against a pervasive, mind altering AI consciousness in VR.

Show me, using the PHB, how I would run a multi-ship space battle between multiple factions, including being boarded by eldritch horrors from beyond the rim of the galaxy.

Show me, using the PHB, what the time to travel to the next core system over is.

These are things that are pretty common in a gritty futuristic sci-fi horror game, and yet you cannot do this in 5e without iterating whole sets of mechanics or just ignoring the system and winging it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Hmm. I think that raises some interesting questions. I don't think anyone would define adding a single subclass, or a race, or some optional rules, as somehow changing the game into being "not 5e". But how far can we change a system until it's not recognizable as itself? Are the changes purely limited to resolution mechanics, or does a change in implied setting or genre also make a game "no longer X"?

This is an interesting question -- especially since this is the revenue stream plan from the designers (to add new things)!

I think that the main difference is that if you're iterating the rules but staying within the established genre and tone, it's just some house-rules but the same system. When, however, you're building out new mechanics, or significantly altering established ones, especially to achieve a different genre or tone feel, you've moved outside the boundaries.

As such, Starfinder is a different system from Pathfinder, even if it is very, very similar. And AW is similar to DW, but are different systems -- they clearly evoke a different feel and are aimed to generate different styles of play.

 

[Fenris-77]

It the difference between core mechanics and the whole game.

 

[TwoSix]

In this sense, 5e D&D can be used to play gritty futuristic sci-fi horror - all the grit will come from GM narration and framing, with the action resolution mechanics just coming along for the ride. But in this case it won't be true that 5e D&D is particularly bad at it, either.

But because @TheSword said that 5e D&D would be bad at it, I took the focus to be less on those underlying fundamentals and more on the existence, within the system, of appropriately coloured game elements. And once we focus on those then I agree with @Ovinomancer - 5e D&D doesn't have them. You have to write them yourself.

I feel like "system doesn't matter" is correlated with preferences for ad-hoc GM resolution and games where the action resolution mechanics "come along for the ride", as you put it. The methods aren't really as important as the trappings, the class modifications and equipment and such, which are there to give a sense of place.

When "system matters", conversely, it's in the context of giving players more authority. One of the main functions of RPG rules is to codify grants of authority to the players and restrict the authority of the GM.

 

[Neonchameleon]

If these are the sorts of discussions that you think are at the core of system matters that does help explain why you think it doesn't much matter.

This is why @Campbell described D&D, PF and WHFRP as basically the same system for the purposes of the discussion about whether or not system matters.

Objection: that was me. And I merely described them as very similar because they come from similar places and do fairly similar things. There are three major differences that mean although similar adventures work it's going way too far to call them basically the same system:

• The character progression system is very different; D&D characters through the levelling system almost level on rails and gain skill basically uniformly. WFRP characters, through the career system, develop different focuses as they grow in experience and are much more grounded in their role in the world.
• The healing system; D&D characters (in any edition) basically heal "clean" and free of consequences, even death being reversible (with respect to the Combat as Sport/Combat as War supposed dichotomy I refer to this as Combat As Paintball). WFRP characters on the other hand take long term consequences and injuries from when they get into fights, plus permanent mutations.
• The (post-1e) magic system. In D&D magic is simple and reliable and will always do what you expect. WFRP 1e used a spell point system, but subsequent editions have you roll to cast spells and it's entirely possible to fail to cast your spell and entirely possible to get an accident which curdles milk or even summons a hostile demon (which may happen whether or not the roll succeeded). This means using magic is always dangerous.

This combination has a significant impact on e.g. how gritty the world is and all three are examples of the system mattering.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I feel like "system doesn't matter" is correlated with preferences for ad-hoc GM resolution and games where the action resolution mechanics "come along for the ride", as you put it. The methods aren't really as important as the trappings, the class modifications and equipment and such, which are there to give a sense of place.

When "system matters", conversely, it's in the context of giving players more authority. One of the main functions of RPG rules is to codify grants of authority to the players and restrict the authority of the GM.

Yup. I will run, and play, pretty much the same in a 5e, Pathfinder, or WHFRP game, just using some different mechanics when I, the GM, decide to use them or when I, the player, need to level up/use a power. The actual approach to play is very similar, so I can see how, if your experience is only in these games, that the concept of "system doesn't matter" can arise -- you're mostly doing the same stuff in all of them, so it's more stage decoration. I think this is flawed, though, in that there are significant differences in how these games articulate game priorities, but this is usually papered over or outright ignored if a given system fails to meet up with the GM's assumptions or desires. Take a look at the threads over in 5e where people complain 5e is "easy mode" and then argue vehemently about the encounter math that has a clear assumption that they're not following. These things are only noted when how you want to run the game isn't supported by how the game was designed to run -- and then are usually met by houserules to enforce the wanted operation.

If you step outside that narrow approach that is, admittedly, very popular, then it becomes immediately apparent that system does matter, and you learn that you should pick a system that lines up with your wants rather than a system that doesn't, but you can complain and house-rule. Until this learning happens, though, you get the angry responses that enough house-ruling makes a favored system do whatever. Mostly, I can lay this at the feet of the presumed knowledge -- if I've done a thing for years or decades, then surely I know what I'm talking about, and what you're saying doesn't match my understanding (which is learned), so you're clearly incorrect! It's a hard pill to swallow, after a time, that your experience may be deep, but it's also narrow.

 

[Manbearcat]

Hmm. I think that raises some interesting questions. I don't think anyone would define adding a single subclass, or a race, or some optional rules, as somehow changing the game into being "not 5e". But how far can we change a system until it's not recognizable as itself? Are the changes purely limited to resolution mechanics, or does a change in implied setting or genre also make a game "no longer X"?

I mentioned in the other thread what I see as the fault line for a "hack" (which is a new game despite being in the family of games of the original):

* Blades in the Dark isn't just a (a) core action resolution engine and (b) a set of play priorities and (c) GMing ethos. Its a game with (d) a specific setting/genre, (e) a specific Win/Loss Con. Then it has (f) a particular set of mechanics that integrate and facilitate the realization of that a - e.

So all of that a - f has to be in there for it to be BitD.

* Forged in the Dark (FitD) is just like Powered By the Apocalypse (PBtA). Its a chassis that always incorporates (a) (though not exactly the same in each instantiation), (b), and (c). Meanwhile, d - f is subtly (or more) different in each case.

* Band of Blades is a stand-alone, FitD game that is different d - f than Blades in the Dark.

So, I would say a 5e hack is when a game has (a) - (c) kindred with 5e but d - f are subtly (or more) different to create a new game.

Obviously if any of (a) - (c) are changed then you must have a new game (and not even a hack).

 

[TheSword]

Saying this without evidence is just handwaving.

Show me, using the PHB, how I would run a computer hacking against a pervasive, mind altering AI consciousness in VR.

Show me, using the PHB, how I would run a multi-ship space battle between multiple factions, including being boarded by eldritch horrors from beyond the rim of the galaxy.

Show me, using the PHB, what the time to travel to the next core system over is.

These are things that are pretty common in a gritty futuristic sci-fi horror game, and yet you cannot do this in 5e without iterating whole sets of mechanics or just ignoring the system and winging it.

You don’t understand the point that was made. A DM could give themselves the task of running a 5e adventure on the nostromo. All 2-3 players are rogues or fighters. It runs level 1-4, no feats, 3d6 character Gen, a handful of special rules like slow healing, sanity rules, no magic, massive damage, monsters real inner as alien horrors. Tech checks are Int tests because the alien ship is beyond the technical understanding of the part. DMG future weapons but limited ammo with drops. 2e Ravenloft style encounter design. A couple of magic items representing technological items - burning hands wand = flamethrower etc.

It...is...posssible...to...run...this...campaign.

Without making up new rules, just by restricting options.

You may not think it has depth, or development opportunities or enough character options. But it is possible. You may score it a 2/10 for ahieving it’s aims, however I can legitimately call it a gritty, sci-go, horror campaign. Saying it is impossible is really a bit daft because not much is actually impossible if you really exercise your imagination.

Now Alien RPG or star finder or another system would probably do it better I’m sure. But then we’re talking about degrees of difference. Which is a value decision and is going to depend on many dependent factors - one of which is the preferences of the players.

That’s the last time I’m going to explain the point.