Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8192088" data-attributes="member: 7023840">The essay by Jon Peterson is helpful in that it illuminates something that is common in most field; nothing is truly new under the sun.As far back as the birth of the hobby, people have argued about whether the system* matters, and whether the first system (or the predominant system) conditions players to approach other systems with certain expectations. In the 70s and early 80s, these arguments were held at tables, in magazines, and at conventions; later, these same arguments were later held via BBS or usenet, still later through various websites and forums (including this one).Yet, the hobby continues. And the arguments recycle periodically, sometimes given different names, sometimes with enhanced vigor, sometimes with science-y sounding terminology to give cover to the same debate, yet the argument is essentially unchanged.At a certain point, many gamers move past these scarred theoretical battlefields to concentrate on the joys of actual play.Does the system matter? Maybe. A little. But not that much. There is not some deep, structuralist meaning; a need to find the universal grammar of TTRPGs that is just waiting for Noam Chomsky. Most games easily allow modification, changes, additions, and so on; the elevation of the &quot;system&quot; (of the rules dictating play) often obscures the actuality of the play experience. The banal observation that people get used to the game they play the most does not seem to prevent other games from being played, either.**Enjoy the games you play. That is, as ever, the only thing that matters. Not the system. *Using this as a loose term for aTTRPG set of rules.**Very few people would say that playing a sport conditions people such that they cannot learn to play other sports with different rules.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Snarf Zagyg, post: 8192088, member: 7023840"] The essay by Jon Peterson is helpful in that it illuminates something that is common in most field; nothing is truly new under the sun. As far back as the birth of the hobby, people have argued about whether the system* matters, and whether the first system (or the predominant system) conditions players to approach other systems with certain expectations. In the 70s and early 80s, these arguments were held at tables, in magazines, and at conventions; later, these same arguments were later held via BBS or usenet, still later through various websites and forums (including this one). Yet, the hobby continues. And the arguments recycle periodically, sometimes given different names, sometimes with enhanced vigor, sometimes with science-y sounding terminology to give cover to the same debate, yet the argument is essentially unchanged. At a certain point, many gamers move past these scarred theoretical battlefields to concentrate on the joys of actual play. Does the system matter? Maybe. A little. But not that much. There is not some deep, structuralist meaning; a need to find the universal grammar of TTRPGs that is just waiting for Noam Chomsky. Most games easily allow modification, changes, additions, and so on; the elevation of the "system" (of the rules dictating play) often obscures the actuality of the play experience. The banal observation that people get used to the game they play the most does not seem to prevent other games from being played, either.** Enjoy the games you play. That is, as ever, the only thing that matters. Not the system. *Using this as a loose term for aTTRPG set of rules. **Very few people would say that playing a sport conditions people such that they cannot learn to play other sports with different rules. [/QUOTE]

Verification