Really, how important is the system/edition?

[zenram]

I can see myself agreeing with that. After all, It's a matter of reducing the variables: once you have the ideal group, you just have to find the ideal game!

+1 I love the systems with strong rules, it helps to develop the game with consistency.

 

[karlindel]

I think that the system is very important. The system sets the tone of the game, and leads to some assumptions as to how the game world works. If the system is one in which it is cheap and easy for characters to have and use powerful magic, it clashes if used to represent a setting in which magic is meant to be rare and dangerous to use. Similarly, systems that has detailed rules for things that aren't important to the game, and no rules for things that are important to the game, will result in a game in which the rules hinder rather than help gameplay.

The system used provides the players with an idea of how the game world works. It also helps them determine how they should play in the world. If the system has player-driven narrative elements, then the players will add elements to the game world themselves. If the system is one in which the players only control what their characters do and no more, then the players are more likely to spend time asking the GM questions to see what they can do. If the system offers incentives for performing certain types of actions, the players are more likely to perform those actions.

I have played in good games under systems I don't like (notably RIFTS), because the players were fun, the GM was good, and the system is not the only thing that can make a game fun. That said, a game will be better off with a system that the players and GM like that also properly represents the kind of game they want to play.

 

[maddman75]

No.

All I meant was that it's easier to ignore a rule in a rules-heavy system that it is to invent a new rule on the fly in a rules-light one. I'm not sure I can make this any plainer.

For example, assuming 3e, when a PC lies to an important NPC, a DM could decide the outcome based on the results of a Bluff check, or solely on the quality of the lie, or, more likely some combination of the two. There is rules support if the DM wants it, but they are under no requirement to use it.

The reverse isn't true. Under 1e, where there are no rules that cover lying, the DM has no formal, tested support for adjudicating the bluff attempt, and should they want some, they're SOL. Their only option is to make something up.

All things being equal, I prefer having (optional) rules support over not having it. Is this getting any clearer?

A good rules light system will have a standard resolution mechanic for such things. You just decide how to apply the standard mechanic. Really, this is how d20 works - roll a d20 + your mods vs a TN. A rules-light d20 might not have any proper skills but a list of character descriptions. So if I have 'smooth talking con man', the GM might decide to give me a +4.

Its is a matter of taste. The more rules a game has, the more stuff there is to remember or look up in play. I absolutely detest opening a game book in the middle of play. You feel that its better to have a rule and not need it than to need a rule and not have it. I feel its better to make up a rule using the standard mechanic of the game than to stop and dig through a mountain of books for a rule.

Good thing there are games for both of us!

 

[Elbeghast]

Yeah, my job matters more to me than the game system I run as a hobby, but that doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not system matters. Likewise, the people sure as heck matter, but that doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not system matters, either.


RC

Stricto sensu, I agree.
And to answer the question: yes, I believe system does matter. But the OP's question isn't "Is the system important? yes/no" It's "HOW important is the system?"

I do believe that the game experience isn't made of just the game system or just people, or just the snacks, or just the laughs, or just the immersion, or just the tactics. It's a blend of all these things and more. To me, playing with people I like will trump the system. Always. I'm not a huge fan of GURPS, for instance, but if my friends are going to play it, and I like playing with them, I'm pretty sure I'm going to have a good time, whatever the rules are. If, however, a group decides to play a game of RuneQuest III, but I just don't like the people who will participate, I just won't play the game at all - nevermind the fact I love RQ III. Here again, people trumped the system.

Conclusion: in that sense, to me, people trump rules. Always.

 

[Hussar]

Here's a three questions for those of you who say that system doesn't matter:

(1) Have you changed system within the last three years?

Yes. After my 3e game ended, we switched to Savage Worlds, and now Sufficiently Advanced. Next might be 4e, possibly with a side trek into Spirit of the Century, and there was some mention of another game whose name currently escapes me.

(2) How much did that cost you?

4e core set was 60 bucks IIRC (it's been a while), Savage Worlds Explorer's Edition was 10 bucks, SA is free, SOTC is playable for free with the online SRD (I'm not GMing), and the other games I don't know yet. So, so far, about 70 bucks.

(3) If system doesn't matter, how do you justify the expense?

IMHO, it is what you do, not what you say, that shows what your real values are.


RC

You are positing a false dichotomy here. It's not a case of "people matter, therefore system doesn't matter at all", but rather a case where people matter more than system does. That does not mean that system does not matter at all.

I'm changing systems because I'm bloody tired of 3e D&D and D&D in general. I played D&D every week, sometimes twice a week for about the last fifteen years or so almost exclusively. I want to play something different.

But, hell will freeze over before I start playing with people I don't like ever again. Pulled that stunt back when I was playing in the local FLGS and posting gamer ads on the (physical) bulletin boards. Never, ever again will I play with people I don't like, regardless of the system.

OTOH, I will play, say, D&D again, with people I like.

Oh, and just this last point:

I can certainly point out a few 4e threads where the spectre of "The DM is doing it wrong" has already arisen.

Like this is different from ANY other edition? Why do you specifically call out 4e for this and not just a blanket D&D instead, since "The DM is doing it wrong" is a complaint that dates back to about the second day D&D was ever played.

 

[Mallus]

A good rules light system will have a standard resolution mechanic for such things.

Speaking of, could you recommend a few? In this thread I found myself in the slightly uncomfortable position of advocating for rules-heavier systems, mainly because that's what I've been playing/running over the past few years. I used to think of myself as a "just make sh*t up" sort of gamer/DM. In some ways I still am, but I find I've warmed to crunchier systems. It's possible that frequent exposure to them has simply worn me down.

So if I have 'smooth talking con man', the GM might decide to give me a +4.

Sounds like the way Spirit of the Century works. I think my group is gearing up for a little SotC (or maybe Starblazer Adventures). Would you consider those FATE-derived games to be rules-light?

Good thing there are games for both of us!

Absolutely.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You are positing a false dichotomy here.

Please tell me what false dichotomy you think I am positing. A false dichotomy is a choice between two mutually exclusive things ("people matter"/"system matters"), where either there are additional options (hence the dichotomy is false in that it is not a dichotomy) or the options are not mutually exclusive (again, therefore there is no dichotomy). Perhaps you are thinking that I am positing some other kind of logical fallacy instead?

Just to be clear, IMHO the OP posits that there is a relationship between the degree that people matter and that system matters. This leads to a false conclusion that, on a scale of 1 to 10, if people matter 7, system can only matter 3.

Reading through the responses to this thread, it seems to me that this false conclusion is rampant.

Oh, and the mention of 4e threads where the spectre of "The DM is doing it wrong" has already arisen was a specific reply to the claim that it is easier to simply not use the rules presented in a complex-rules game (such as 3e or 4e) than it is to add rules to a rules-lite game (such as 0e).

My point was that there is no difference.....and you clearly got that point, even if you didn't understand the context!


RC

 

[maddman75]

Speaking of, could you recommend a few? In this thread I found myself in the slightly uncomfortable position of advocating for rules-heavier systems, mainly because that's what I've been playing/running over the past few years. I used to think of myself as a "just make sh*t up" sort of gamer/DM. In some ways I still am, but I find I've warmed to crunchier systems. It's possible that frequent exposure to them has simply worn me down.

Well, PDQ is about as light as it gets. Each character has so many qualities worth a certain bonus or penalty. If you want to do something, roll 2d6 and beat a 7. If one of your qualities applies, add the bonus. So if you're a dashing pirate, your character sheet might read Being Dashing +2, Swordfighting +2, Sailing Ships +2, Looking for Booty +2, Wanted by the Crown -2. That's pretty much the system.

InSpectres is another great light system. It is made intending to be ran with no prep and fast chargen, perfect for those situations where there are several gamers about but no one has anything prepped. It lets the players determine the mystery, and the GM just keeps things moving. The concept is sort of like the PCs are on a Ghostbusters reality TV show, and is very tongue in cheek.

Dread is about as rules light as it gets. Pull a block from the Jenga tower if you want to do something. If it falls, you're out. Great for horror one-shots.

Dogs in the Vineyard is a little rules heavier, but a great example of rules specific. The PCs are 'God's Watchdogs' in a quasi-mormon old west. They travel from town to town solving problems and keeping the Faithful on track and safe from demons. I rather like that the 'demons' part is left very vague. You can run demons attacking the down as 'crops failing and the women are barren' or 'Brother Jeremiah is possessed and we need to do an exorcism' or both. It has some neat resolution mechanics, where you can either accept a loss or raise the stakes. Is what your arguing about worth getting physical? It is worth throwing a punch? Do you believe you are right enough to pull a gun?

But it is specific. If you're looking for rules to survive travelling in the desert, or prospecting gold, or having a mass battle, you won't find it here. This game is about conflict and belief. I rather like that.

And really, rules light is a matter of perspective. One man's rules light is another's rules heavy.

 

[Afrodyte]

Speaking of, could you recommend a few?

Depending on your tastes, I have a few in mind, a couple I tinkered, and one I designed myself.

 

[Woas]

1) Yes. I've picked up about 3 or 4 other games in the past three years.

2) Over the past three years, probably $60 - $70

3) The expense isn't that much. And for the most part the games are used two fold: first as a collective source of gaming repertoire. A lot of how I play is little parts of gold from many different sources. Secondly each game fulfills a different role because I do a lot of impromptu gaming. So I have super rules-lite game (3:16, Barbarians of Lemuria). Heavier games (Traveller) and just unique games (Dogs in the Vineyard). All of these are like a tool depending on the situation.


For me I don't think edition or system is that important. It's the sum of all the parts and the people at the table that make it good.