Really, how important is the system/edition?

[Raven Crowking]

So far, then, I take it that system isn't important only if you don't buy a lot of gaming books, or didn't buy the three core 4e books? Based on the amount people claim they spent, I mean.

EDIT: This obviously reverses -- if system isn't important, one wouldn't buy lots of gaming books, or shell out for 4e. One would, presumably, play a free game.

 

[Mallus]

@maddman75 - thanks for the recommendations. I've heard of all those systems, but haven't read them. I recall being pretty intrigued by someone describing using DitV for a Jedi-centric Stars Wars campaign... maybe on RPG.net?

@Afrodtye - recommend away (and congrats on making your own game). I'm not sure I can adequately describe my tastes -- "slightly absurdist genre metafiction that still manages to have some respct for traditional notions of character" comes close, but it also comes close to saying nothing at all. There's a story hour here based on my previous long-running fantasy campaign. That one was a bit like China Mieville meets Terry Pratchett.

 

[Woas]

@ Mallus

Going back and rereading posts in the previous page, I'd have to disagree with your point about rules-heavy vs. rules-light on the spot calls, but maddman75 made all the points I would have.
A recommendation to see this in action would be 3:16 Carnage Among the Stars. This game gives player-characters 2 stats: Fighting Ability and Non-Fighting Ability. Think of a game of D&D where instead of having BAB, Strength, Dex, Weapon enchantments, etc. etc. added to an attack role or Charisma, race bonus, diplomacy skill added to a speaking role a character just had "Attack" and "Everything Else".

Even if it's not the game for you (and I can see why some people might be turned off the game. It does cut very close to exposing RPGs to there basic, ugly core) it is an interesting game that really opens one's eyes to how flexible games with almost no 'book rules' and a lot of theme-mood can be.

 

[Ariosto]

It seems to me that many of the pioneering 1970s RPGs put "what the game is about" far ahead of "systems" effectively for their own sake. Many hands added many supplemental elaborations ("authorized" or not) to D&D, while other games followed the trend toward including more and more stuff in "RPG boilerplate". Eventually, it seemed as if every new game -- whatever its thematic focus -- was effectively an aspiring GURPS.

The core conceits of Paranoia are brilliant, the "systems" laid on top (regardless of edition) not all that. IIRC, the original game master was pretty far from systematic.

Cart-before-the-horse design (IMO) has turned lately more toward abstraction, unfortunately often combined with needless complexity. When the designer draws attention to the machinery, when it is in his or her own eyes so important, it seems pretty natural for players to consider that it matters.

 

[Hussar]

So far, then, I take it that system isn't important only if you don't buy a lot of gaming books, or didn't buy the three core 4e books? Based on the amount people claim they spent, I mean.

EDIT: This obviously reverses -- if system isn't important, one wouldn't buy lots of gaming books, or shell out for 4e. One would, presumably, play a free game.

That's only true if you are a book collector.

I could play 4e, for example, with only the core 3 with no problems. I could play Savage Worlds with only the SWEX for 10 bucks and play for years.

I don't think there is a correlation between dollars spent and importance of system.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I don't think there is a correlation between dollars spent and importance of system.

Of course there is.

The amount of money you are willing to spend for anything is directly related to the amount of value you place on that thing. Unless, of course, the rules of economics have somehow changed overnight.

Ergo, the amount of money you are willing to spend for system is directly related to the amount of value you place on system.

Unless, as you say, you are a collector, and you are not buying RPG books for system, the amount of money you are willing to spend for RPG books is directly related to the amount of value you place on system.

Even if you spend only $10 on system.

When I look at my RPG book collection, it is a certain indicator that I think system matters! Moreover, the time I have spent tinkering with system is the same.


RC

 

[Hussar]

Of course there is.

The amount of money you are willing to spend for anything is directly related to the amount of value you place on that thing. Unless, of course, the rules of economics have somehow changed overnight.

Ergo, the amount of money you are willing to spend for system is directly related to the amount of value you place on system.

Unless, as you say, you are a collector, and you are not buying RPG books for system, the amount of money you are willing to spend for RPG books is directly related to the amount of value you place on system.

Even if you spend only $10 on system.

When I look at my RPG book collection, it is a certain indicator that I think system matters! Moreover, the time I have spent tinkering with system is the same.


RC

If what you are saying is true, then, for me, 2e was FAR more important to me than 3e. I spent considerably more money on 2e than 3e. Yet, I dropped 2e like a bad habit when 3e came out. Thinking about it, adjusting for inflation, I likely spent roughly the same or maybe a tad more on 1e than I did on 3e and you know my opinion of 1e.

So, no, dollars spent does not correlate with how important the system is to me.

Heck, I spent a huge amount of time, way back when, playing Star Frontiers. All that cost me was a boxed set (this was long before Zebulon's) and three modules. Several hundred hours of game play for not a whole lot of money.

So, solely from my own perspective, money spent =! importance of system.

Or, looking at another group - those that play OOP editions. How much money has someone who is playing 1e spending per year on D&D? Spread over the two or three decades of gaming, that gamer is spending very, very little on his hobby.

How important do you think his system is to him though? Judging from some of the posts, I'd say it's pretty damn important.

 

[Raven Crowking]

If what you are saying is true, then, for me, 2e was FAR more important to me than 3e.

Um.....No.

First off, you misunderstand what is meant by "importance of system". If system is important to you, it makes sense that you try multiple systems in order to find the "best" one to your needs. If system is unimportant to you, there is no real incentive to try new systems.

IOW, if system is important, you invest in new editions, and probably new games as well. If system is unimportant, there is little incentive to do so.

Secondly, you misunderstand the relationship between purchases on various editions. If I had a choice between X and Y, and I spent ten times as much on X, it would be a strong indicator that X is more important to me than Y. If, OTOH, Y does not yet exist when I bought X, examining how much I spent on X only shows that X is important to me.

Third, you have heard the saying "Time is Money"? Now, look at the post you are replying to: When I look at my RPG book collection, it is a certain indicator that I think system matters! Moreover, the time I have spent tinkering with system is the same.

Did you tinker with Star Frontiers, or did you use the system as written? Your answer is an indicator of how important system was to you at the time.

Finally, in your example, the guy who is happy with 1e may believe that system is important to him......and, if he has chosen 1e after an extensive examination/trial of other systems, I would accept this to be factual. Otherwise, I would believe that there are other factors involved.

What this thread demonstrates, to me, is that some of us want to believe that system is unimportant to us, even if we have demonstrated in numerous other threads, as well as with our spending, that this is simply untrue.



RC

 

[billd91]

First off, you misunderstand what is meant by "importance of system". If system is important to you, it makes sense that you try multiple systems in order to find the "best" one to your needs. If system is unimportant to you, there is no real incentive to try new systems.

IOW, if system is important, you invest in new editions, and probably new games as well. If system is unimportant, there is little incentive to do so.

<snip>

What this thread demonstrates, to me, is that some of us want to believe that system is unimportant to us, even if we have demonstrated in numerous other threads, as well as with our spending, that this is simply untrue.

I think this is getting to be a bit of a stretch. It may not be system at all because it may also be subject matter.

I suppose someone investing in a lot of games with virtually the same subject matter may be searching for the system just right for him. But someone investing in a lot of games of differing subject matter as well as rules systems, may not find the system important at all. They're just enjoying the different subject matter.

It also may be evidence that system really doesn't really matter. They'll play anything. System may be interesting but unimportant in deciding what to play.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think this is getting to be a bit of a stretch. It may not be system at all because it may also be subject matter.

I suppose someone investing in a lot of games with virtually the same subject matter may be searching for the system just right for him. But someone investing in a lot of games of differing subject matter as well as rules systems, may not find the system important at all. They're just enjoying the different subject matter.

It also may be evidence that system really doesn't really matter. They'll play anything. System may be interesting but unimportant in deciding what to play.

Bill,

If one is spending predominantly for differing subject matter, or as a collector, you have a point. OTOH, if one is spending predominantly for differing subject matter, one is less likely to buy subsequent editions of the same game. Buying the same monsters and character classes over and over again simply because there is a new system (edition) out is classic "system matters" behaviour.

You say "System may be interesting but unimportant in deciding what to play"; I say, if you are interested in systems, by definition systems are important to you to the degree that you are interested in them.

Finally, sample any selection of EN World threads. Lots and lots of rules discussion. Rules are systems. In fact, there are so many threads devoted to 4e as a system in the General Forum that the value of EN World to me personally has sharply decreased in the last year.

Mind you, that means that the value will have increased for those playing 4e, so it all balances out.

EDIT: Ha! I posted the above, and now the General Forum doesn't bear it out. *^&%$! I guess the mods are doing a great job of keeping things in their proper forums! Still, how many people deny that system-related concerns are a common topic of conversation among us, including among quite a few people who claim that system doesn't matter?


RC