Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 9243394" data-attributes="member: 4937">This brings up for me a sub-question which is, &quot;Is there such a thing as a table top RPG that is so bad that someone somewhere didn't enjoy it?&quot;&nbsp; I can see that question going really badly if explored in the wrong way, but I've long believed that &quot;System doesn't matter&quot; but rather only &quot;Process of play matters&quot;.&nbsp; (I recognize that the original promulgator of the concept &quot;System matters&quot; including process of play in his overarching definition of system, but my critique is intended to focus on the fact that the response to the claim &quot;System matters&quot; is to heavily focus on trying to achieve some effect via hard coding of rules including hard coding of the process of play, usually with the underlying assumption that a game has a single objective and a single unified process for achieving that is the best way to accomplish that.)What this thread has got me thinking about is just how subjective this question is despite the fact that we can objectively analyze a rule set to make a claim like &quot;the math doesn't work&quot; or &quot;the procedures are overly complex&quot; or &quot;there is a lot of unnecessary fortune ritual involved here where we randomize the random numbers&quot; or even maybe &quot;the rules aren't clearly laid out&quot; or &quot;the balance is terrible&quot;, because individual tables can all intentionally or accidental have processes of play and aesthetics of play where none of that matters in the slightest and were rules problems and lack of clarity disappear owing to the fact that the table doesn't even realize what the rules are but plows ahead with its own flawed understanding and it just works for them.I guess I'm saying that it would not surprise me at all for every game we tried to list that there was someone who said, &quot;I played that game and I had an amazing time!&quot;&nbsp; In some cases, that might be a little bit uncomfortable (if the problem we had with the game wasn't mechanical but content), but since we are principally judging mechanics I know that there are people who had a blast playing Rifts, GURPS, and Storyteller games and who knows maybe even Mouse Guard with a good GM that plowed right over the problems.I guess what I'm saying is Synnibarr has a fanbase.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 9243394, member: 4937"] This brings up for me a sub-question which is, "Is there such a thing as a table top RPG that is so bad that someone somewhere didn't enjoy it?" I can see that question going really badly if explored in the wrong way, but I've long believed that "System doesn't matter" but rather only "Process of play matters". (I recognize that the original promulgator of the concept "System matters" including process of play in his overarching definition of system, but my critique is intended to focus on the fact that the response to the claim "System matters" is to heavily focus on trying to achieve some effect via hard coding of rules including hard coding of the process of play, usually with the underlying assumption that a game has a single objective and a single unified process for achieving that is the best way to accomplish that.) What this thread has got me thinking about is just how subjective this question is despite the fact that we can objectively analyze a rule set to make a claim like "the math doesn't work" or "the procedures are overly complex" or "there is a lot of unnecessary fortune ritual involved here where we randomize the random numbers" or even maybe "the rules aren't clearly laid out" or "the balance is terrible", because individual tables can all intentionally or accidental have processes of play and aesthetics of play where none of that matters in the slightest and were rules problems and lack of clarity disappear owing to the fact that the table doesn't even realize what the rules are but plows ahead with its own flawed understanding and it just works for them. I guess I'm saying that it would not surprise me at all for every game we tried to list that there was someone who said, "I played that game and I had an amazing time!" In some cases, that might be a little bit uncomfortable (if the problem we had with the game wasn't mechanical but content), but since we are principally judging mechanics I know that there are people who had a blast playing Rifts, GURPS, and Storyteller games and who knows maybe even Mouse Guard with a good GM that plowed right over the problems. I guess what I'm saying is Synnibarr has a fanbase. [/QUOTE]

Verification