Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Jon Peterson: Does System Matter?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Emerikol" data-source="post: 8216038" data-attributes="member: 6698278"><p>I really just wanted you all to know I was replying to you guys.</p><p></p><p>I think the big issue and misunderstanding is that you think people like me are questing for realism. The whole thing about swallowing could be as simple as the creatures that don't do not prefer to eat their prey alive. It's not the sort of thing that causes difficulty. You keep wanting to push me into a camp that I am not in at all. I do not want to play a hyper realistic game with lots of specific rules for every little thing. That is not the inevitable conclusion of people like me. If anything the OSR people are rebelling against that.</p><p></p><p>Some can't stand the thought that there is a consistent thread that runs through my thinking on objectionable stuff. We've argued that one for ages. I'm not abandoning that position but for purposes of "does system matter", it doesn't matter. If my preferences are just random or if they are based on a particular discernible consistent viewpoint really is irrelevant for this discussion. You know what I think and I know what many of you think. </p><p></p><p>When a system implements rules that I have a hard time explaining when playing in my playstyle then it's a system I tend to avoid. </p><p></p><p>I want specific things out of a game for the style I play.</p><p></p><p>1. Favors in character viewpoint play. This means avoiding metagame/dissociative mechanics. (Again if you can't accept that I have a proper theory then just accept it as preference. I believe I do have a rock solid theory but you may not.)</p><p>2. Favors exploration of a well designed sandbox world that had some thought put into it. Obviously, the sandbox area is far better defined than a distant country but that distant country has enough defined to satisfy the players needs. The world is a living world that is changing even when the PCs are not affecting it. DMs that make it up as they go are generally not favored. That is not to say you never make some minor detail up but the goal is to have a well developed world.</p><p>3. Adventures are player skill challenges. Preparation is important. Dungeon crawling in a careful and systematic way is important. Combats require tactics and at times strategy. Resource management is a concern. </p><p>4. Ultimately as the PCs gain in power and influence they interact with the world even more. All the discussions about Domain management and books supporting that play exist because that is what is wanted for this particular style of play. World engagement is big.</p><p>5. The dice fall where they may and bad things can happen to PCs. From death to energy drain, rust monsters, etc... all that stuff that "modern" game designers say is bad are things desired by my style of play. </p><p></p><p>I don't condemn any other style of play. I just don't prefer it for myself. I've been playing D&D since all of the above was the assumed and before that. So I lived through the OSR days when the O was actually new. So you can argue that you didn't play that way in those days, but I did. I played that way all the way through 3e. I realized though that with each succeeding edition, it was getting harder and harder to play the style of play I preferred. So when for the first time, I didn't buy the next edition of D&D (5e), I just let go. I let go of a name and I sought out games that suited me. Right now I'm finding Adventurer Conqueror King interesting though C&C has a lot of good ideas. My ideal game would probably be a fusion of some of what they do.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Emerikol, post: 8216038, member: 6698278"] I really just wanted you all to know I was replying to you guys. I think the big issue and misunderstanding is that you think people like me are questing for realism. The whole thing about swallowing could be as simple as the creatures that don't do not prefer to eat their prey alive. It's not the sort of thing that causes difficulty. You keep wanting to push me into a camp that I am not in at all. I do not want to play a hyper realistic game with lots of specific rules for every little thing. That is not the inevitable conclusion of people like me. If anything the OSR people are rebelling against that. Some can't stand the thought that there is a consistent thread that runs through my thinking on objectionable stuff. We've argued that one for ages. I'm not abandoning that position but for purposes of "does system matter", it doesn't matter. If my preferences are just random or if they are based on a particular discernible consistent viewpoint really is irrelevant for this discussion. You know what I think and I know what many of you think. When a system implements rules that I have a hard time explaining when playing in my playstyle then it's a system I tend to avoid. I want specific things out of a game for the style I play. 1. Favors in character viewpoint play. This means avoiding metagame/dissociative mechanics. (Again if you can't accept that I have a proper theory then just accept it as preference. I believe I do have a rock solid theory but you may not.) 2. Favors exploration of a well designed sandbox world that had some thought put into it. Obviously, the sandbox area is far better defined than a distant country but that distant country has enough defined to satisfy the players needs. The world is a living world that is changing even when the PCs are not affecting it. DMs that make it up as they go are generally not favored. That is not to say you never make some minor detail up but the goal is to have a well developed world. 3. Adventures are player skill challenges. Preparation is important. Dungeon crawling in a careful and systematic way is important. Combats require tactics and at times strategy. Resource management is a concern. 4. Ultimately as the PCs gain in power and influence they interact with the world even more. All the discussions about Domain management and books supporting that play exist because that is what is wanted for this particular style of play. World engagement is big. 5. The dice fall where they may and bad things can happen to PCs. From death to energy drain, rust monsters, etc... all that stuff that "modern" game designers say is bad are things desired by my style of play. I don't condemn any other style of play. I just don't prefer it for myself. I've been playing D&D since all of the above was the assumed and before that. So I lived through the OSR days when the O was actually new. So you can argue that you didn't play that way in those days, but I did. I played that way all the way through 3e. I realized though that with each succeeding edition, it was getting harder and harder to play the style of play I preferred. So when for the first time, I didn't buy the next edition of D&D (5e), I just let go. I let go of a name and I sought out games that suited me. Right now I'm finding Adventurer Conqueror King interesting though C&C has a lot of good ideas. My ideal game would probably be a fusion of some of what they do. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Jon Peterson: Does System Matter?
Top