Really, how important is the system/edition?

[Herobizkit]

I have recently started generating a character for an "old-school" 2e campaign. After having played 3.x for about a decade, I am grating against all of the restrictions in place. Luckily, my DM is very rules-light and doesn't enforce many of the limitations. It is going to be quite a step back to play in such a small sandbox.

Also, I found it very diificult to play a "heroic" modern/fantasy crossover campaign using d20 Modern - the characters were simply too restricted in what they could do and, without hoserules, were shoehorned into their particular roles. It's funny, but I found that Palladium's Robotech rules worked much better for the same concept.

GURPS Fantasy was fun, but too gritty for the high-fantasy feel that I enjoyed while playing D&D. The learning curve was pretty steep, too. ("What do you mean, he snapped my rapier in two? I parried the hit!")

So yes, I find that systems and editions are important because they help define the physics of each 'virtual' world, and not all game physics are alike.

 

[SteveC]

I'd say that it certainly can be, depending on the kind of game. Let me explain: at this point in my life, free time is a precious commodity, so I don't really have the time to do something that I don't find fun and entertaining.

As a result, I tend to like two kinds of games: something that's heavily plotted with an interesting story to experience or something where the individual play experience itself is interesting and creative.

I love a game where there's a mystery we're going to explore: what's going on? Who's doing it? What's the real story behind the campaign? In that kind of game, the system doesn't really matter to me, because we're exploring an interesting story.

If that's not going to be the case (and most D&D games don't feature that level of storytelling) there has to be something interesting about the game itself: maybe it's the combat, maybe it's character development or something similar, but if I'm not having fun because of the game itself, I really have better things to do.

So I guess that's a "very important" or "not at all," if you get my meaning.

--Steve

 

[Kzach]

Editions are vital for edition wars.

 

[Ariosto]

With lighter rules interest depends more on the players and the scenario. The quality can rise to greatness, but it can also sink terribly on an "off" night. Rules heaviness can be a drag to some, but it's reliable; it can be at least consistently mediocre. A complex tactical war-game (or other sub-game) at the heart of an RPG is analogous to the effects-laden fight scene in a modern adventure movie.

I have recently started generating a character for an "old-school" 2e campaign. After having played 3.x for about a decade, I am grating against all of the restrictions in place.

"Old-school" to me means harking back to the original ("0e"?) game, in which, "There is no reason that players cannot be allowed to play as virtually anything, provided they begin relatively weak and work up to the top," (Vol. 1, p.8). "We have attempted to furnish an ample framework, and building should be both easy and fun ... and the best way is to decide how you would like it to be ... why have us do any more of your imagining for you?" (Vol. 3, p. 36)

In other words, the multiplication of rules in 3e struck me rather as a multiplication of restrictions. That has to do with the fundamental attitude that necessitates set rules from "on high" -- higher even than the DM's chair! -- for everything in the first place. If one has already adopted that, then of course the problem with the chains in old-style D&D is simply that there are not enough of them.

(The "problem" of a GM not permitting one to play a Half-Ogre, Half-Hobbit Were-Trout Jester is -- or sensibly ought to be, IMO -- quite another matter. I can "take a troll to lunch", but I also appreciate that boundless diversity ultimately means boundless homogeneity. If a world lacks ogres, hobbits, weres and/or trout, it may be desirable to preserve that much of its "local flavor".)

Sometimes I like the kinds of games-within-the game that 3e (or some other rules set) provides. More often, though, I find them distractions -- especially in their usual character as solitaire games -- from the "main event". I suspect that this is pretty typical (but not inevitable) a shift as one gets older and has played more such games. In the 1980s, I was keen on trying ever more elaborate systems.

Anyway, it's pretty clear that the more a game is designed to cater to one preference, the less it's likely to appeal to one diametrically opposed. In some particular cases, I can swing to either extreme -- but on balance these days I favor the slimmer rule-books.

 

[Herobizkit]

For me, I enjoy the fiddly bits of 3e. I enjoy designing and building characters using feats, and I almost always end up playing a multi-classed character. I prefer versatility to focus, and I like using the rules to design the kind of character I want. It's a self-imposed limitation (work within the rules), but I prefer to work within the rules as-is than house rule in a bunch of 'patches' and have to remember them all.

 

[Mallus]

re: rules heaviness/lightness and dice heaviness/lightness.

It's much easier to dial down the 'heaviness' of the rules than it is to invent complex and/or fiddly rules on demand. All it takes is the consent of your players. You want to resolve everything during a session using player skill/input and DM Fiat? Go right ahead. The rules will always be there when if and when you you need them. The reverse is not so true. It's harder if you start with a rules-light system and decide it would be nice to resolves a combat using something as tactical and fiddly as 4e's combat system --good luck whipping that up on the fly.

Systems are nice to debate online. But practically speaking, system isn't as important as how a given group of people use a system. Last Friday I ran my 4e game 'rules-light'. Most of night, it was just players telling me what their character's did (and speaking in character) and me telling them how the world reacted. I could have been running 1e or 2e for all the rules mattered.

 

[Wombat]

The whole "Edition Wars" thing has me thinking: How important is the system?

Hmm, how to answer this.

For me, it is important to get a setting first and then find the right set of rules to match it. Thus, to stick to D&D, OD&D, 3.whatever and 4e are going to mirror different styles and settings for me, although they will all be for games with a very strong emphasis on combat over other potential roleplaying aspects. The systems are close, but not quite interchangeable for my purposes.

Now if I am simply wanting to get together with friends and fine a single game to play pretty much forever, without alterations of rules sets, editions may or may not make a huge difference. With Ars Magica, for example, the rules have changed over time, but the rule changes have been subtle quite often (though these can trip you up); with D&D the changes from OD&D to 1st AD&D to 2nd AD&D were there, but the core game felt discernibly the same -- 3e led to major changes and 4e was a seismic shift from 3e. Whether one embraced these changes or not was a matter of taste, but there are significant differences.

In the end, I have played and enjoyed systems that I have otherwise disliked (GURPS, I am looking at you) because I was in with a good GM and a great group of players; conversely, I have played using systems that I love but due to bad chemistry with the players, the games were horrid.

So, in the end the people are the table are incredibly important. But, once you have that settled, opinions about specific editions, from my experience, can break up the best of groups. In that way, as well as my own view on setting first, rules second, editions can make a gigantic difference.

 

[Ariosto]

It's much easier to dial down the 'heaviness' of the rules than it is to invent complex and/or fiddly rules on demand.

Yes, on demand being a notable qualifier -- as well as the provision that "dial down" need not include any more subtle adjustment than tossing the rules wholesale. The more, and the more carefully balanced and integrated, the adjustments, the less difference there is between the process and the design of "complex and/or fiddly rules" from the ground up.

I like to have plenty of truly optional resources, from the 0e Ready Ref Sheets to the 1e DMG and beyond. "Whipping that up on the fly" all at once obviously did not and does not happen -- nor need it (although it's nifty to be able to pull a cornucopia someone else has written off the shelf). Embellishments pretty naturally build up gradually as the players find use for them.

So long as they are truly modular, one can easily pull them out and plug them in. I know from personal experience that it is easier -- in the sense of requiring less careful consideration -- to develop a complex structure of interwoven dependencies than to disassemble it and keep it running smoothly.

The consent of players to toss much of 3e or 4e (or Hackmaster or GURPS, etc.) is probably (and quite reasonably) rarely given. More likely is that they choose the game because, like Herobizkit, they "enjoy the fiddly bits". If the "builds", the "skill systems", the hour-long combats and the intricate and integrated game balances were not so important, then folks could simply play some other game with fewer rules and more GM rulings.

Cut out the powers, the skill ratings and "challenges", the combat board game, the "magic-item economy" ... and is the gutted husk that's left really worthy of the name "4e"? What would be the point, when we could have started with (e.g.) Labyrinth Lord instead and saved money as well?

 

[Hussar]

Count me in the crowd that thinks that comparing group to game isn't a fair thing.

A good group can work with a bad game - for me that would be anything from Paladium. Seriously clunky rules, but, I liked the group and had fun.

No game can survive a bad group. It doesn't matter how good your game is, if the players or DM are prats, your game will suck. End of story.

However, I am a big believer in fitting the system to what you want to achieve. If you want a particular type of game, find a system that works for you and yours to make that happen. There are so many systems out there, that it's pretty much guaranteed that there is a system that fits your tastes better than any other game.

I guess that's where group gets REALLY important because I've seen so many players who just do not want to learn new systems. DM's are often trying new stuff, buying new games, then bring it to the table and everyone else just turns up their nose. Sigh.

 

[Mallus]

Yes, on demand being a notable qualifier -- as well as the provision that "dial down" need not include any more subtle adjustment than tossing the rules wholesale.

I think you're seeing qualifiers where I didn't intend any. All I was saying was that's it's easier to substitute simple and informal means for adjudicating player actions (ie, the DM's common sense or a 50/50 roll) than it is to create complex and formal rules for adjudicating player actions at the table. I suppose the thing I left unstated was the assumption that RPG rules are primarily systems for adjudicating player actions.

And I'm not sure where you got the idea I was excluding subtle adjustments to rules-complexity.

The more, and the more carefully balanced and integrated, the adjustments, the less difference there is between the process and the design of "complex and/or fiddly rules" from the ground up.

I'm not sure what you mean by this (thus I'm not sure it's relevant).

I like to have plenty of truly optional resources, from the 0e Ready Ref Sheets to the 1e DMG and beyond.

What are you criteria for "true (bolded) optionality"? The way I ran 3e, and currently run 4e, the skill system is optional. I use it when needed, to the extent it's needed, thus I consider it optional. My players are fine with this. Can it get more optional?

The consent of players to toss much of 3e or 4e (or Hackmaster or GURPS, etc.) is probably (and quite reasonably) rarely given.

Are you speaking from experience or merely offering conjecture? My experience of running 3e for several years was that my players freely consented to suspending, tossing, or modifying the rules.

More likely is that they choose the game because, like Herobizkit, they "enjoy the fiddly bits".

It's certainly possible to enjoy the fiddly bits in moderation (again, this is my experience of the bulk of the 3e era).

Cut out the powers, the skill ratings and "challenges", the combat board game, the "magic-item economy" ... and is the gutted husk that's left really worthy of the name "4e"?

That's just it... my group likes those things --well, except for the magic item economy-- but we also like more old-school, free-form play, where player actions are adjudicated primarily by good DM judgment (fiat can be such a loaded term). It's not either/or. And it's easier to achieve "rules-lightness" on the fly, as the mood strikes us, then to do the reverse.

Which was my initial point, if you recall...

What would be the point, when we could have started with (e.g.) Labyrinth Lord instead and saved money as well?

re: LL and other games of it's kind... they don't have the fiddly bits we enjoy (in moderation). That makes them a poor choice for (most of) my group.