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

[overgeeked]

I apologize if I was too indirect. So I will be blunt (and forgive me for that).

I made my point. It was fairly clear and succinct. I was asked, and I answered, what I find unpleasant about "system matters" conversations. And yet I am being asked to engage in the very thing that I find unpleasant!

To engage in a conversation about why system matters.

But again, this is what I said:
Strong statement. This is where I get worried, because (to an extent), I feel similar to when an athlete says, "It's not about the money." When I see people making strong "system" arguments, I try to hold on to my wallet, because I feel that they are usually trying to sell me on something- a theory or a game. Which is fine, for them, but I don't need to be theory-splained as to why the game I enjoy doesn't work in theory, while whatever they are selling is the only real way to have fun. "System matters" inevitably means that because it matters, some systems are better than others, and let me tell you why these systems are better ....

This is what prabe said directly above me:
I think that at least some of the pushback (for lack of a better term) that "system matters" gets is about an impression one can get from some folks into indie-games (not you, to be clear) that the people who don't prefer them haven't played them and/or are Philistines. It's actually possible to try indie-games (and understand them) and not prefer them.

Is this clear enough? I was trying to politely say that I am not interested in this type of conversation, because it inevitably goes to places that I do not enjoy. That does not mean that other people cannot enjoy discussing the theory, it doesn't mean that they cannot enjoy discussing the finer points of Ron Edwards and Vincent Baker, and it doesn't mean that their preferences (and the extent to which they are enjoying their own games) is not correct. But I have found these conversations are tedious to me, and provide more heat than light. Usually, then end up with the "System Matters" folks "inviting me to examine my position" over an over again, and refusing to take, "Well, that's great for you, but I like what I like" as an answer. Which, again, unpleasant.

TLDR; bluntly, I don't want to have this conversation because I don't find it productive, and I was trying to politely excuse myself and point you to a thread that people were engaged in it.



*It was not aldarc, it was loverdrive, not that it matters.

I think system matters, but I don’t mean that one system is objectively, qualitatively better than any other system. It’s not system matters, therefore system X is the best and the rest can suck eggs. It’s that each game produces different results, therefore different systems are better to use when you want those results, so system matters. The right tool for the right job.

If you need to place nails you’re going to reach for a hammer. If you need to place screws you’re going to reach for a screwdriver. You can use a screwdriver to place nails, but a hammer works better. You can use a hammer to place screws, but a screwdriver works better.

When people say system doesn’t matter (in the sense of all games produce identical results), it’s the same as them saying all tools are the same and produce the same results. Or all musical instruments produce the same sound. It’s absurd and nonsensical on its face.

 

[MGibster]

TLDR; bluntly, I don't want to have this conversation because I don't find it productive, and I was trying to politely excuse myself and point you to a thread that people were engaged in it.

But why are you participating in a thread about the very subject you don't want to have a conversation about?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

But why are you participating in a thread about the very subject you don't want to have a conversation about?

Do you mean, why did I post my opinion about why I reject the idea that "systems / rules matter" in a thread called, "Some reasons why people may reject the notion that 'System/Rules matter'"

Is that what you are asking?

Or was this really just a clever meta-commentary noting that your comment, and the one above it, are both "inviting me to examine my position" and refusing to take my repeated answers?

In which case ... okay then?

​

​

 

[MGibster]

In which case ... okay then?

Dude, I'm generally happy when I open up a thread and see Snarf Zagyg has something to say. But if this is a subject you don't like talking about (and that's perfectly okay) why post in this thread at all? I don't say this because I don't want you to participate, see opening sentence, but because I'm mildly worried. You take care of yourself, Snarf.

 

[MichaelSomething]

More hopefully, it suggest the possibility of indie game creators in the years ahead having the chance to have a bigger impact on the on the hobby than, say, voice actors, if we broaden our focus.

The "Matt Mercer effect" has influenced play styles far more then many rule systems!

 

[hawkeyefan]

So I’m not at all a car guy. I have only vague ideas of how combustion engines and the other components all do what they do. I can maybe point out some parts under the hood, but not others.

Yet I drive a car nearly every day. It’s vital to my lifestyle.

But I don’t care at all how it works.

I don't think that my lack of interest in how it works means that how it works doesn’t matter.

 

[pemerton]

• Rules lawyers make my table worse, and rules arguments and systems/edition wars make my online experience worse, therefore I hate rules.

<snip>

• Setting, theme and/or strong adventure plots drive my purchase and play decisions, not rules.

<snip>

• My “generic” system (Fate, GURPS, D&D, Empire of the Petal Throne, Bunnies and Burrows, whatever) is good enough for my purposes, your bespoke system isn’t worth the cents of electricity it would take for me to read it.

<snip>

• Rules provide a minor oracular compliment to my agenda as a player; therefore, I want them light.
• I hate the way the rules I’ve encountered limit my descriptive freedom to accomplish my goals.

These all seem to be reasons why system matters. You seem to be saying that you want a process of play, and "rules" around that, that support GM storytelling and player participation mostly in the form of adding colour and characterisation.

When I see people making strong "system" arguments, I try to hold on to my wallet, because I feel that they are usually trying to sell me on something- a theory or a game.

I think most designers focus on the rules because that's the easier way to make more books and more money.

This is a bit weird to me. As Luke Crane has said, Burning Wheel is essentially a charity operation providing high quality games and books to starving gamers. Which "system matters" proponent do you think is making money out of it? The main money-maker in RPGing is WotC, and they are firm proponents of system doesn't matter.

When I say System Matters I am not talking about what I value about role-playing games. I am making an assertion that a game's design impacts what happens at the table. That the decisions players make, the unfolding narrative or game state, and our shared sense of meaning or enjoyment from the game are impacted by the game's design.

Right. And you can see this in the OP: the OP advocates for a certain sort of play experience, and it's clear that some systems - processes of play and associated resolution techniques - won't deliver that.

Ah. So it's semantic confusion, then.

I don't think that's accurate; it is just as accurate to say that it is semantic confusion on the part of proponents of "system matters."

Huh? Some people say system matters having a clearly intended meaning - more-or-less what I've quoted Campbell as saying. They are not semantically confused. That others than respond to something that was never asserted, because they misinterpret the claim, is on them.

Personally I think the "misinterpretation" is often accidental-on-purpose rather than genuinely inadvertent, as there is a significant component in the RPG culture, including the online culture, which is actively hostile to attempts to analyse the causal/social processes of play, and hence wants to divert any attempt to discuss those things instead to an advocacy of their own play preferences.

Some people do in word and deed asset that system does not matter, or matter much to them.

If other people find this to be an almost inexplicable denial of an obvious and inescapable truth, they might consider if their understanding of the breath of purposes within the hobby is incomplete in some way.

It would be helpful if you engaged with Campbell's point. The claim that system matters is not a claim about what people should care about. It's a claim about causal and social processes in gameplay. The people you point to who don't care about system are still having their play influenced by the system they are using. If they adopted different processes of play and/or resolution techniques they would find their play experience changing. The fact that many of them probably don't care to do that just drives home the point that those things matter to the RPG play experience.

 

[pemerton]

Obviously many of the these reasons might seem to be besides the point to designer or enthusiast steeped in the sputtering remnants of Forge culture.

People arguing about Ron Edwards, either directly or indirectly.

So just to be clear, Snarf Zagyg: you liked an OP that referred to "the sputtering remnants of Forge culture", but you don't like threads that involving arguing about Ron Edwards either directly or indirectly?

 

[pemerton]

So I’m not at all a car guy. I have only vague ideas of how combustion engines and the other components all do what they do. I can maybe point out some parts under the hood, but not others.

Yet I drive a car nearly every day. It’s vital to my lifestyle.

But I don’t care at all how it works.

I don't think that my lack of interest in how it works means that how it works doesn’t matter.

Right. The claim that system matters isn't a claim about what anyone should care about, or spend their time on.

It's a claim about necessary conditions of particular experiences. In particular, if you want an experience different from GM-driven storytelling, there are ways to do that but they will require different processes of play and perhaps also different resolution techniques from those you've been using.

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.

Agreed. Once you move away from GM-driven storytelling/railroading, there are different ways to establish the shared fiction via player decision-making. And there are both procedures and techniques that are at odds with that (just as, as you note, there are procedures and techniques that will impede GM-storytelling).

It's not a coincidence that RPGers who want to make that move are the ones who have noticed that system matters, because the default approach to RPGing at least since the early-to-mid-80s has been GM-driven storytelling. So of course for those who want that, there has never been much need to think about system.

Here's why I have doubts when people tell me that "system does not matter" to them : I have never encountered someone who says those words who would be just as comfortable playing Dungeon World, Burning Wheel, or Dogs in the Vineyard as the mainstream game they are playing. Usually it indicates a set of preferences that does not want the game to have a strong impact on play. It indicates a comfort and satisfaction with the play they have experienced.

<snip>

I think most people who play D&D 5e for example and thoroughly enjoy it are poor candidates for Burning Wheel or even Dungeon World.

I would suggest that if the play experience is identical then so is the actual process of play. I get that the vast majority don't think about rules that much. In the middle of playing game neither do I, but those rules still have an impact. In my experience people are not getting similar experiences from wildly different games. They are getting incredibly similar experiences from incredibly similar games. The vast majority of mainstream games and the vast majority of games that people play follows an incredibly similar set of play procedures, divisions of narrative authority, and set of play priorities.

I'm not saying you are anyone else has to care about what happens at the margins of the hobby, but the play experience is remarkably different in games like Burning Wheel, Apocalypse World, Dogs in the Vineyard, and Monsterhearts. You cannot easily get the same experience in a remarkably different game. I have never seen someone try to do so without exposure to these games either.

Right. What you say in these posts fits with chaochou's post: the systems you mention (PbtA, BW, DitV) are precisely the "rarer ones" which don't support GM-driven storytelling.

When those who are comfortable with the default encounter those "rarer" systems then they suddenly discover that system does matter to the play experience: and frankly you can see that encounter happening in thread after thread on these boards. In the same way, those who want play experiences different from the "mainstream" need to change their system to change their experience. There is zero chance, playing 5e D&D (to pick a prominent "mainstream" RPG), of getting the sort of experience I have when I play Burning Wheel.

 

[pemerton]

I'm not saying you cannot drift or alter the experience. When I run mainstream games I bring in techniques from indie designs all the time, but I am bringing that energy in and making changes to the process of play.

My approach to GMing Classic Traveller is influenced by my play of Prince Valiant and my reading of Apocalypse World and Dungeon World. I don't think it's a radical change to what Marc Miller wrote, but it's definitely a development/addition.

Generally why I take exception to "system does not matter" is because I was deeply dissatisfied with typical play, sought out games that did things differently, and spent years developing skill in a variety of play techniques. What advocates of "system does not matter" are often saying without realizing it is that developing that discipline, that technique was worthless - that they can easily achieve the same results effortlessly without putting in the work to fine tune the play process. I find it highly arrogant.

I also do not get how someone can emphatically speak on something they so thoroughly lack experience in. D&D being good enough for your purposes sure. How games you have never even taken a second look at impacting the play experience is somewhat different from my perspective. That seems to be something you cannot really speak concretely on without actually trying.

I think this is an interesting point.

The way I encounter/experience it is a bit different from you - perhaps a bit more intellectualised - but I think at bottom it's similar. To move to a different field of aesthetic endeavour: there are people who enjoy airport-ish spy/thriller novels, or who enjoy John Le Carre, but who have no interest in The Quiet American or The Human Factor. As is obvious, there's no accounting for taste. And while discriminatory ability can be learned, there's no obligation to learn it - so if someone can't see what it is that might lead another person to think that Greene is the superior novelist to Le Carre, well that is what it is and is unobjectionable.

But affirmatively trying to argue that there is, in fact, no basis for making that sort of judgement - that it's wronghead to think that Graham Greene's spy novels stand head-and-shoulders above Le Carre's - seems to me a different thing. To borrow a word that someone used upthread, it seems like philistinism of the vicious sort.