Some reasons why people may reject the notion that "System/Rules matter"

[Mark Sabalauskas]

When most people have these arguments they're stuck on arguing about the first one. The second one is basically, "I have different preferences than you." To which the only reasonable response is: cool, have fun.

Yes, there is no disputing about taste.

 

[MGibster]

I cannot speak for everyone, but when I think of my favorite games ... I don't reminisce over the rules. I don't think about the system.

I don't either. When I'm reminiscing, I'm off to Nostalgia Land where I tend to have warm fuzzy thoughts about what was good or laugh about about the terrible ways my characters were killed off. Good times. But when I'm not busy waxing nostalgia I remember level caps, THAC0, optional rules for weapon speed, separate tables for leveling depending on class, etc., etc.

The elevation of system to the detriment of the other important aspects in creating meaning is something that I think is too often overlooked; and I appreciate the thoughtfulness that went into this.

I don't think I've seen that happen.

 

[chaochou]

If I want to railroad players through a scripted plot, generally speaking I find system doesn't matter unless I happen upon one of the rarer ones which totally doesn't support that type of play.

If I want them them to believe their 'decisions' matter - when in fact they don't - or I want them to collude with me in the illusion that their decisions matter - when in fact they don't - again I find system doesn't really matter unless I happen upon one of the rarer ones which totally doesn't support that type of play.

If I don't want to do either of the above, I find system matters greatly.

In response to the idea that 'system matters' is some kind of money-grabbing sales pitch, here's a thought: the total value of Apocalypse World stuff available in my local game store is £30 - one rulebook - which I've been using to play for more than 10 years. That's my total spend in a decade. The total value of 5e merchandise is well over £3,000. I wonder which set of players are more likely to believe system matters? Hint: it's the AW players. Which set of players are being sold new product every month? Hint: It's the 5e players.

 

[fearsomepirate]

In an RPG, "the system" is the engineered part. Caring about the rules is analogous to carrying about heat dissipation, material elasticity, per-unit component costs, and all that stuff. Just because a customer doesn't consciously care about all that doesn't mean it doesn't actually matter, and thus you can neglect it. On the other hand, you can nail all the technical engineering concerns and still end up with something ugly/uncomfortable/unstylish that nobody wants to buy.

 

[Campbell]

If you earnestly believe that somehow adventure, setting, and aesthetic design have been neglected in lieu of an overemphasis on system design I think you have been living under a rock. The business model of the two most popular games is built entirely around selling modules. OSR design is predicated on the primacy of the module. Other fairly popular games like FFG Star Wars, FFG Legend of the Five Rings, The One Ring, and Vampire The Masquerade Fifth Edition devote in inordinate amount of page space and developer attention to setting design. Even indie games like Apocalypse World have a strong focus on implied setting and aesthetics. Blades in the Dark devotes far more words to setting and scenario design than its rather elegant system.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I don't think I've seen that happen.

And yet I glanced over at the other thread that started as a historical discussion from Jon Peterson, and saw the most recent posts were arguing over Ron Edwards and Vincent Baker.

If you want to say that the rules matter, fine. That's great.

But when I see people say, "System matters," I know what's coming, and it's usually unpleasant. For me, at least. YMMV.

 

[fearsomepirate]

In just about any market, users who care deeply about engineering details are typically fringe and missing the point. Years ago, this dude came onto a forum I was on, saying he couldn't decide whether to buy a PS2 or a Gamecube because he wasn't sure which had a better memory architecture. The answer was, "do you want to play Mario and Zelda, or Grand Theft Auto and Final Fantasy?"

 

[Manbearcat]

And yet I glanced over at the other thread that started as a historical discussion from Jon Peterson, and saw the most recent posts were arguing over Ron Edwards and Vincent Baker.

If you want to say that the rules matter, fine. That's great.

But when I see people say, "System matters," I know what's coming, and it's usually unpleasant. For me, at least. YMMV.

That sounds pretty ominous!

Can you describe "what's coming?"

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

That sounds pretty ominous!

Can you describe "what's coming?"

People arguing about Ron Edwards, either directly or indirectly.

Or (to use an example from the "How to Fix 6e" thread) saying that everyone who likes D&D should just play DungeonWorld.


In every field (not just TTRPGs) there is so much to be learned from theory. And yet, in every field, there ends up being people who take that to an uncomfortable level, and end up prescribing to others what they should like.

"That's great in practice, but this is what you should like in theory."

TLDR; maybe I should be watching Dog Star Man, but sometimes I just want to watch 1982's The Thing.

 

[MGibster]

But when I see people say, "System matters," I know what's coming, and it's usually unpleasant. For me, at least. YMMV.

I don't know what that means. What's coming?

Edit: Oh, I see you've posted what that means.