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

 

[dragoner]

Get a better spell checker?

Not liking the games is perfectly fine, but they don't emulate physics as you've suggested. Fiasco doesn't either. So the main point here is that "RPGs are physics engines" is false, even if some may be (more properly, try to be).

Also, you perhaps meant Blades in the Dark rather than Forged? FitD is a blanket term for many similar games that have grown out of Blades in the Dark, much like how Powered by the Apocalypse games grew out of Apocalypse World.

I am always going to argue for inclusion vs elitism, that is the way it will be. Mostly GURPS gets tagged as being a physics engine for simulation, however, all rpg's are in their own way, as worlds are simulated for the characters are to interact with. Can you have a rpg without a setting or characters?

It is BitD, I mostly keep track of ones I am going to run, I mean we even have one GM that runs almost solely 5e, and I only recently bought the DMG and MM. I also bought the Starfinder core as I might become a player in a game of that, probably never run it though. Last game I ran was Classic Traveller, before that Mythras, M-Space, and Mongoose Traveller (lot of m's there). Don't really know what I am going to run next. Reading Mindjammer FATE right now also.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I am always going to argue for inclusion vs elitism, that is the way it will be. Mostly GURPS gets tagged as being a physics engine for simulation, however, all rpg's are in their own way, as worlds are simulated for the characters are to interact with. Can you have a rpg without a setting or characters?

I... what? I don't even follow this argument. There's no exclusion or elitism in anything I've said, I'm merely pointing out that not all RPGs aspire to be physics engines. That you've moved now to arguing about setting and characters is very, very strange to me, and suggests that we're not at all using the same definition of "physics engine".

It is BitD, I mostly keep track of ones I am going to run, I mean we even have one GM that runs almost solely 5e, and I only recently bought the DMG and MM. I also bought the Starfinder core as I might become a player in a game of that, probably never run it though. Last game I ran was Classic Traveller, before that Mythras, M-Space, and Mongoose Traveller (lot of m's there). Don't really know what I am going to run next. Reading Mindjammer FATE right now also.

Okay. Glad to hear you're having fun.

 

[pemerton]

The problem with rules as physics is that there are mountains of underlying assumptions in terms of process/playstyle that sit beneath that basic idea.

<snip>

It's not just a nuance. It's a fundamental assumption about what the purpose of play is in the first place.

innerdude, that was an epic system matters post!

 

[pemerton]

@pemerton Sorry, but I'm not following this part. Can you expand on the differences you see for clerics & paladins between 4th ed. on the one hand and the older editions on the other? And the role of (in game) providence in the differences?

My reasoning doesn't contradict @Ovinomancer's but is a bit different, or takes a slightly different perspective.

It begins with this question: what is the meaning of the d20 roll? And the follow-up question that arises once the dice have been rolled and the consequence narrated: what [in the fiction] caused the consequence to occur?

The more that the game adopts a "rules as physics" orientation; the more that the d20 is taken to reflect or "model" the vagaries of luck and fortune; the more the GM establishes the fiction that surrounds all this based on his/her priorities and sense of the fiction rather than in a player/character-centred way; then the less the game will have a sense of providence at work, and the more it will seem like a world of cold, soul-less causation. (In literary terms this is the world of REH's Conan, with perhaps Hour of the Dragon as an exception.)

4e is the version of D&D that departs the most from the approach of the previous paragraph: the rules are for establishing outcomes and consequences, but they aren't treated as a model or "physics"; and the game places more emphasis on player/character-centred narration, whether coming from the GM or directly from the player. Which creates much more scope for the outcomes to be framed by the player (with the cooperation/support of the GM) as the workings of providence.

Here's a practical example (though the mechanic at issue in this particular example is not a d20 roll but an effect duration):

What had happened was that a cultists had hit the paladin of the Raven Queen with a Baleful Polymorph, turning the paladin into a frog until the end of the cultist's next turn. The players at the table didn't know how long this would last, although one (not the player of the paladin) was pretty confident that it wouldn't be that long, because the game doesn't have save-or-die.

Anyway, the end of the cultist's next turn duly came around, and I told the player of the paladin that he turned back to his normal form. He then took his turn, and made some threat or admonition against the cultist. The cultist responded with something to the effect of "You can't beat me - I turned you into a frog, after all!" The paladin's player had his PC retort "Ah, but the Raven Queen turned me back."

There we have an example of a player taking narrative control on the back of an NPC's mechanic that the player knew nothing of until encountering it in the course of actual play. And at least for me, as a GM, that is the player of the paladin playing his role. And driving the story forward. On the back of a so-called "dissociated" mechanic.

In a rules-as-physics-type game this wouldn't make sense, because it is part of the causal logic of the effect itself that means the polymorphed paladin turns back into a human.

Whereas the approach of 4e permits the player to establish the narration that he did around those events: turning back into a human is a manifestation of divinity at work.

 

[dragoner]

I... what? I don't even follow this argument. There's no exclusion or elitism in anything I've said, I'm merely pointing out that not all RPGs aspire to be physics engines. That you've moved now to arguing about setting and characters is very, very strange to me, and suggests that we're not at all using the same definition of "physics engine".

Okay. Glad to hear you're having fun.

Indeed, it is the name of the game.

Not to slight Ron Edwards either, as I follow him on fb, think we are friends; but he has talked of things he has said being used in an elitist manner. Physics engine does sound somewhat jargonistic, I mean physics to me is just the study of the natural world, something rpg's emulate as well. Then again I learned math much easier than english, and yet here we are.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

@pemerton Thanks for the explanation.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Indeed, it is the name of the game.

Not to slight Ron Edwards either, as I follow him on fb, think we are friends; but he has talked of things he has said being used in an elitist manner.

Um, okay. I didn't quote Ron Edwards.

Physics engine does sound somewhat jargonistic, I mean physics to me is just the study of the natural world, something rpg's emulate as well. Then again I learned math much easier than english, and yet here we are.

I dunno about how you play, but study of the natural world isn't something I've done in an RPG. I'm not following whatever it is you're laying down, I guess. When people use "physical engine," the thing to comes to mind is a process to create physical results in the game world. This is notably used in the video game industry to talk about the physics simulation engine in a game. Upthread, @Emirikol was referring to being able to suss out game rules in the game world because they were discoverable and repeatable (my phrasing). I'm still not at all sure what it is you're referring to, though.

 

[innerdude]

First off, it would seem that the division between those claiming "RPG mechanics act as physics engines" and those claiming "RPG mechanics do not always act as physics engines" should prove beyond reasonable doubt that system matters.

(Truthfully, I would have significant doubts about an individual who claimed the contrary. Despite any sincerity and good intentions he or she exhibited, I'd probably find their playstyle to be problematic at best for what I'm looking for in RPG play.)

But thinking through the "rules as physics" thought process a bit more --- Is there value in trying to create "associative" rules that could be perceived as a form of "knowledge" within the shared fiction? Generally speaking, I'd say yes. RPG play relies on having some level of agreement about the constraints that operate as boundaries on the limits of the fiction.

But this is only one part of generating fictional positioning.

Consider the classic RPG declaration, "Rocks fall, you die." And let's say this declaration is pointed at a particular fictional character, Bob the Fighter.

At this point, what is to be considered about this declaration? What factors determine its "truthiness" or "falsiness"?

If you want to break down the "physics" of that declaration further---how heavy the rock is (as represented/abstracted in the number of d6 of damage it deals when it falls), how far it fell, whether the situation warrants such a declaration as being possible at all without supernatural interposition ("Gee, how'd those rocks get there in the first place?")---are ultimately only possible considerations around determining whether Bob is now dead or still alive. The real question is, where does the final authority lie in determining the "truthiness" of the declaration?

Obviously, Bob's player is fully capable of proposing an alternative declaration---"No, Bob isn't dead."

Once again, any "physics" applied to the evaluating this counter-declaration are only points of reference. Do the "rules as physics" say that situationally, Bob the Fighter can dodge said rock? How effectively is this dodge opportunity measured? How much harm does he avoid if he does dodge it? Is it possible that Bob's opposing strength (represented as the "physics" of oppositional force) means he can simply catch the rock and hurl it away? Can Bob's player declare an equal enforcement of supernatural interposition ("At the last second, the rock inexplicably moves 25 feet to the side and tumbles away harmlessly")?

Physics as rules are only one frame of reference for fiction state negotiation. They do not possess an inherent, naturally derived, superior position to other considerations of what should be true in the fiction.

They are merely markers, or anchors, or suggestions on who has the authority, and when to suggest what is or is not true.

 

[Ovinomancer]

First off, it would seem that the division between those claiming "RPG mechanics act as physics engines" and those claiming "RPG mechanics do not always act as physics engines" should prove beyond reasonable doubt that system matters.

(Truthfully, I would have significant doubts about an individual who claimed the contrary. Despite any sincerity and good intentions he or she exhibited, I'd probably find their playstyle to be problematic at best for what I'm looking for in RPG play.)

But thinking through the "rules as physics" thought process a bit more --- Is there value in trying to create "associative" rules that could be perceived as a form of "knowledge" within the shared fiction? Generally speaking, I'd say yes. RPG play relies on having some level of agreement about the constraints that operate as boundaries on the limits of the fiction.

But this is only one part of generating fictional positioning.

Consider the classic RPG declaration, "Rocks fall, you die." And let's say this declaration is pointed at a particular fictional character, Bob the Fighter.

At this point, what is to be considered about this declaration? What factors determine its "truthiness" or "falsiness"?

If you want to break down the "physics" of that declaration further---how heavy the rock is (as represented/abstracted in the number of d6 of damage it deals when it falls), how far it fell, whether the situation warrants such a declaration as being possible at all without supernatural interposition ("Gee, how'd those rocks get there in the first place?")---are ultimately only possible considerations around determining whether Bob is now dead or still alive. The real question is, where does the final authority lie in determining the "truthiness" of the declaration?

Obviously, Bob's player is fully capable of proposing an alternative declaration---"No, Bob isn't dead."

Once again, any "physics" applied to the evaluating this counter-declaration are only points of reference. Do the "rules as physics" say that situationally, Bob the Fighter can dodge said rock? How effectively is this dodge opportunity measured? How much harm does he avoid if he does dodge it? Is it possible that Bob's opposing strength (represented as the "physics" of oppositional force) means he can simply catch the rock and hurl it away? Can Bob's player declare an equal enforcement of supernatural interposition ("At the last second, the rock inexplicably moves 25 feet to the side and tumbles away harmlessly")?

Physics as rules are only one frame of reference for fiction state negotiation. They do not possess an inherent, naturally derived, superior position to other considerations of what should be true in the fiction.

They are merely markers, or anchors, or suggestions on who has the authority, and when to suggest what is or is not true.

Yup. A more erudite version of the points I was trying to make.

 

[dragoner]

Um, okay. I didn't quote Ron Edwards.

I dunno about how you play, but study of the natural world isn't something I've done in an RPG. I'm not following whatever it is you're laying down, I guess. When people use "physical engine," the thing to comes to mind is a process to create physical results in the game world. This is notably used in the video game industry to talk about the physics simulation engine in a game. Upthread, @Emirikol was referring to being able to suss out game rules in the game world because they were discoverable and repeatable (my phrasing). I'm still not at all sure what it is you're referring to, though.

The op links to Edwards' blog, he is system matters.

So you play with not having an idea of the rules and even "to suss out" the rules is bad? Hmm, that's cool, you do you. We do indeed play differently, as I like to have some sort of working knowledge of them; usually for me it is wander around and interact with the environment in game, while having a beer, and a laugh with friends.