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

 

[Campbell]

@Manbearcat


When I play more traditional games I enjoy the experience, but feel like I often have to moderate my play. As someone who is very extroverted and likes to play games hard I find that I often have to read the room and hold back on my play. When I play Masks or Apocalypse World that concern fades away because there is no real danger of grabbing the spotlight because when the GM turns to me and says "Character name, what do you do?" the spotlight is on my character and when it's someone else's turn it's on them. I get to play as hard as I want to.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Would you really want to model this in a game system's combat rules, though? Or is this better handled by some kind of narrative decision?

Personally, I want to play D&D. Somebody else might want something quite different.

 

[Manbearcat]

@Manbearcat


When I play more traditional games I enjoy the experience, but feel like I often have to moderate my play. As someone who is very extroverted and likes to play games hard I find that I often have to read the room and hold back on my play. When I play Masks or Apocalypse World that concern fades away because there is no real danger of grabbing the spotlight because when the GM turns to me and says "Character name, what do you do?" the spotlight is on my character and when it's someone else's turn it's on them. I get to play as hard as I want to.

Yup. This is a huge deal. We talk about authority distribution all the time (and, while certainly related, they aren't exactly the same), but the expectation of how the collective energy is distributed is equally important.

Then (after expectation is established) we can talk about procedurally how to orient toward energy distribution parity (which is, in part, about authority).

 

[Arilyn]

Some players like to just float, roll dice, and leave the decision making and tactics to the other players. These kind of players are not a good fit for PbtA games. A typical D&D game, however, allows them to just roll dice and observe.

I didn't role play back in the day, when AD&D was pretty much the only game in town, because I hated the system. The system was a huge barrier for me.

I'm glad we have a large variety of games that are much easier to access. System matters is a boon, in my opinion, because there is a much higher chance of matching people up with a game that'll sing for them.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Yea, then there's a terminology issue here. I wouldn't consider LotFP, Hulks and Horrors, and ACKS to be the same system even though they're all derived from B/X. Same with 1e and 2e. I'd say they have the same chassis or engine, but aren't the same system.

I would definitely characterize those games as all sharing a system. ("Engine" and "chassis" might as well be synonyms.) That's their whole draw.

White Star is my go-to sci-fi game and not Traveller precisely because it's "D&D in space," and that's the sort of experience I want out of a sci-fi RPG. System matters -- more than fluff or branding IMO -- but that's not license to claim that genre emulation is determinative.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I would definitely characterize those games as all sharing a system. ("Engine" and "chassis" might as well be synonyms.) That's their whole draw.

White Star is my go-to sci-fi game and not Traveller precisely because it's "D&D in space," and that's the sort of experience I want out of a sci-fi RPG. System matters -- more than fluff or branding IMO -- but that's not license to claim that genre emulation is determinative.

To me, if I can't do a thing without extensive changes, it's a different system. White Star uses a d20 and class based design, but that doesn't make it the same system as other d20, class based systems, even though they'll have lots of similarities. I also find this opinion largely held by people that haven't stepped out of that d20 design world, or into games that alter the assumed power dynamics of the game. It's a comfortable place to be -- you can quickly pick up related games (this is a draw for PbtA games, as well -- understanding the core engine means the different systems are about adapting to the specifics rather than learning a new thing). But, this doesn't mean that an engine that can sub into multiple genres is capable of any genre (again, Monsterhearts is a clear example).

If "system" just means a basic resolution system, then it's far to broad a term to be useful. I find little to be similar to a game of 3.x compared to Mutants and Masterminds, even though they share the same basic resolution system.

 

[MacD]

I think mostly system FLAWS matter; yes, most games would be hard to be re-written for a completely another genre, but it would be possible somehow.
On the other side, if you play a system and encounter strange odds (rulewise, not plotwise - in cthulhu it´s totally ok to encounter stragne odd things) that disturb the feeling many times a day, playing starts to feel wrong.
Earlier this thread someone mentioned a traveller version´s combat system - if you want to shoot sometimes without the need of killing everything, that´s ok, if you want to KILL somebody like weapons should do it´s a big system flaw.

I remember nearly-undestructible Cyber-Trolls in Shadowrun 3 - killed by slipping some stairs. Just because system says falling damage may not be prevented by armor - neck broken, character dead.

By the way, I somehow don´t like systems that use combat-like systems for social encounters (Infinity, I´m looking on you), but I also dislike the nearly-total absence of social abilities in d&d.

Ever played a game that provides three! combat systems (Fighting, social encounters and "infowar"- influencing the meaning of many via media in a way you want to)?
You will always feel weak.
You know you play a great fighter - but if your enemy is a politican he will talk you into the ground and three days later half the city believes your fighter is a murderhobo.
Yaaay.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think mostly system FLAWS matter; yes, most games would be hard to be re-written for a completely another genre, but it would be possible somehow.
On the other side, if you play a system and encounter strange odds (rulewise, not plotwise - in cthulhu it´s totally ok to encounter stragne odd things) that disturb the feeling many times a day, playing starts to feel wrong.
Earlier this thread someone mentioned a traveller version´s combat system - if you want to shoot sometimes without the need of killing everything, that´s ok, if you want to KILL somebody like weapons should do it´s a big system flaw.

I remember nearly-undestructible Cyber-Trolls in Shadowrun 3 - killed by slipping some stairs. Just because system says falling damage may not be prevented by armor - neck broken, character dead.

By the way, I somehow don´t like systems that use combat-like systems for social encounters (Infinity, I´m looking on you), but I also dislike the nearly-total absence of social abilities in d&d.

Ever played a game that provides three! combat systems (Fighting, social encounters and "infowar"- influencing the meaning of many via media in a way you want to)?
You will always feel weak.
You know you play a great fighter - but if your enemy is a politican he will talk you into the ground and three days later half the city believes your fighter is a murderhobo.
Yaaay.

I play systems that have 1 resolution systems for fighting, talking, and whatever infowar is standing in for. Works a treat! The problem you're referencing, though, isn't a problem with differing systems, but with differing system weights -- if talking can convince a city that you're a horrible person and need to be evicted/arrested but you can only beat up one or a few people at a time, then the issue isn't the resolution method, but the balance between scopes. Clearly, in this game, you shouldn't put a lot of effort into learning to beat things up.

 

[Aldarc]

If "system" just means a basic resolution system, then it's far to broad a term to be useful. I find little to be similar to a game of 3.x compared to Mutants and Masterminds, even though they share the same basic resolution system.

It's hard to imagine that the OSR would have any of the momentum or legs to stand on that it did if simply having six attributes and a d20 resolution system was all it takes to be the same system as the WotC era of D&D.

 

[jayoungr]

My answer:

Yes, but in most cases, not as much as some people claim.

I think you can do most adventure-type scenarios with most adventure-type games, and the differences created by the game system will be relatively minimal.

If you want to do something that isn't a straightforward adventure scenario, then you might need to search for a more tailored system.