Pathfinder 1E Wizkids should take the Pathfinder 1.0 ruleset and publish their own RPG.

[Parmandur]

The only possible way that system could not matter is if accept the fact that it is nonbinding. I wholly reject this notion. This is not a feature of the way I play roleplaying games. I cherish the moments when system gets in the way and we all get to experience the story/game together rather than any particular person deciding how things should go. I am broadly suspicious of anyone who claims to be making decisions for the sake of "the story" as if they could know what is best for it because we should all be playing to find out what that is.

For my money the entire purpose of these games is to regularly and routinely get in the way. They introduce to the fiction things that wholly unwelcome, but nonetheless compelling. Bits of fiction that no one at the table would choose, but we are all better for. Stuff that shifts the narrative in completely new directions that all the players, including the GM, need to respond to.

You cannot have real tension or real game play if the rules are nonbinding.

It may not matter to you, but it is deeply important to me.

The outside force of the action resolution is what provides the game energy, along with a judge who can adjudicate the resolution. However, it makes very little difference in fact what dice are being rolled and what process is used for adjudication is applied.

Hogwash.

The people I play with matter, not what math we use when rolling dice. The latter is accidental to the experience, not substantial.

 

[Aldarc]

The outside force of the action resolution is what provides the game energy, along with a judge who can adjudicate the resolution. However, it makes very little difference in fact what dice are being rolled and what process is used for adjudication is applied.

This seems like a shallow understanding of other games and their respective game experiences.

The people I play with matter, not what math we use when rolling dice. The latter is accidental to the experience, not substantial.

The people I play with matter when playing card or board games, but I'm not going to pretend as if the game rules and mechanics don't matter for the sort of experiences they engender.

 

[Jer]

The outside force of the action resolution is what provides the game energy, along with a judge who can adjudicate the resolution. However, it makes very little difference in fact what dice are being rolled and what process is used for adjudication is applied.

This seems a bit ... strange to me? My group very definitely has a very different experience when we play 4th edition D&D vs. 3rd edition D&D vs. Monster of the Week vs. Torg Eternity vs. Trail of Cthulhu vs. Icons vs. Mutants and Masterminds. And I wouldn't try to run a Trail of Cthluhu scenario in 4th edition D&D despite the same people at the table.

The rules of a game very definitely not just support but encourage particular play styles and narratives and discourage others. In some games this is explicitly so and clearly intended by the designers, in others (especially older ones) it's an emergent property from the particular things that the designer emphasized or de-emphasized in their simulation rules.

ETA: And I would say that, thinking on it recently, 5e D&D was clearly designed to give a play experience that replicates the feeling of playing some combination of 1e and 2e AD&D while not replicating the rules. I think that was actual design intent and I think it comes through in the system.

 

[Parmandur]

This seems like a shallow understanding of other games and their respective game experiences.

The people I play with matter when playing card or board games, but I'm not going to pretend as if the game rules and mechanics don't matter for the sort of experiences they engender.

Poker provides a different experience from Chess, sure, those are different types of game. RPGs engender the experience of role-playing, they are the same thing.

Rules might attempt to channel the emotional experience, but this can only do so much, and is tertiary.

If Steve Jackson went through a dark ritual in Texas, and replaced all RPG rules in the world with GURPS, and made non-GURPS RPGing impossible...it wouldn't make a substantial difference to the hobby.

 

[Parmandur]

This seems a bit ... strange to me? My group very definitely has a very different experience when we play 4th edition D&D vs. 3rd edition D&D vs. Monster of the Week vs. Torg Eternity vs. Trail of Cthulhu vs. Icons vs. Mutants and Masterminds. And I wouldn't try to run a Trail of Cthluhu scenario in 4th edition D&D despite the same people at the table.

The rules of a game very definitely not just support but encourage particular play styles and narratives and discourage others. In some games this is explicitly so and clearly intended by the designers, in others (especially older ones) it's an emergent property from the particular things that the designer emphasized or de-emphasized in their simulation rules.

ETA: And I would say that, thinking on it recently, 5e D&D was clearly designed to give a play experience that replicates the feeling of playing some combination of 1e and 2e AD&D while not replicating the rules. I think that was actual design intent and I think it comes through in the system.

It was meticulously designed to give the player base what they wanted as an aggregate, and provide a smooth play experience.

 

[Aldarc]

Poker provides a different experience from Chess, sure, those are different types of game. RPGs engender the experience of role-playing, they are the same thing.

Rules might attempt to channel the emotional experience, but this can only do so much, and is tertiary.

We may as well say that poker and gin rummy engender the experience of card games, that they are therefore the same thing, but I would hope that you could agree that they are not. I don't think that roleplaying games are the same because I largely think that the rules and priorities of even roleplaying games can often differ. So I don't really find your attempts at reductionism all that compelling.

 

[Parmandur]

We may as well say that poker and gin rummy engender the experience of card games, that they are therefore the same thing, but I would hope that you could agree that they are not. I don't think that roleplaying games are the same because I largely think that the rules and priorities of even roleplaying games can often differ. So I don't really find your attempts at reductionism all that compelling.

Well, no, Gin Rummy is a matching game (giving much the same experience as Mahjong) whereas Poker is more like old fashioned Middle Eastern games like As-Nas.

Group storytelling RPGs are a shared type of game: the mechanics can help or hinder somewhat, but it is the people.

It strikes me, however, that you have a bit of a logical conundrum here: if system matters, then 5E cannot be a mediocre game because it delivers for the majority of people. On the other hand, if 5E is a mediocre game, then clearly system doesn't matter, since it has succeeded wildly and 4E is adequate proof that market position isn't the reason. Therefore we can see that "5E is a mediocre game" and "system matters" cannot both be true, though both can be false statements.

 

[Jer]

It strikes me, however, that you have a bit of a logical conundrum here: if system matters, then 5E cannot be a mediocre game because it delivers. On the other hand, if 5E is a medicore game, then clearly system doesn't matter, since it has succeeded wildly and 4E is adequate proof that market position isn't the reason. Therefore we can see yhat "5E is a medicore game" and "system matters" cannot both be true, though both can be false statements.

But ... but ... my head is exploding because I don't get what you're saying at all.

If system didn't matter then there wouldn't have been the backlash to 4e. Everyone would have been happy with it. But 4e as a system didn't deliver the play experience that a lot of people wanted and 5e does so system MUST matter to people and their play experiences.

And as far as mediocrity goes - the idea that something is mediocre or not is an opinion, and popularity is not a measure of lack of mediocrity. Chicken nuggets are a very popular food, but that doesn't mean that you can't hold the opinion that chicken nuggets are also a mediocre foodstuff. Superhero movies are a very popular genre, and yet some might hold the opinion that superhero movies are mediocre examples of the film form. You can simulatenously understand that something is very popular and still have the belief that it's a mediocre example of the form - heck in some circles you can be very highly paid to express exactly those opinions!

 

[Aldarc]

It strikes me, however, that you have a bit of a logical conundrum here: if system matters, then 5E cannot be a mediocre game because it delivers. On the other hand, if 5E is a medicore game, then clearly system doesn't matter, since it has succeeded wildly and 4E is adequate proof that market position isn't the reason. Therefore we can see yhat "5E is a medicore game" and "system matters" cannot both be true, though both can be false statements.

@Parmandur, it seems that in your rush to be a fanatical knight for 5e that you have fancied me to be in a "conundrum" where there is none. This is honestly a ridiculous argument, and @Jer highlights this point quite well with several pertinent examples.

It amazes me, Parmandur, how hardly you have decided to lean into this hyper-defensive behavior surrounding 5e that I described earlier:

And yet why do so many people feel the need to be so hyper-defensive about what should not be a controversial statement: i.e., that D&D cannot do everything? Why the desperate need by some to defend the idea that D&D can do everything? What spurs that impulse?

Why are you so sensitive about people criticizing 5e in any form? Why do you feel the need to rush to the aid of the most popular, corporately-backed RPG in the industry?

 

[Parmandur]

But ... but ... my head is exploding because I don't get what you're saying at all.

If system didn't matter then there wouldn't have been the backlash to 4e. Everyone would have been happy with it. But 4e as a system didn't deliver the play experience that a lot of people wanted and 5e does so system MUST matter to people and their play experiences.

And as far as mediocrity goes - the idea that something is mediocre or not is an opinion, and popularity is not a measure of lack of mediocrity. Chicken nuggets are a very popular food, but that doesn't mean that you can't hold the opinion that chicken nuggets are also a mediocre foodstuff. Superhero movies are a very popular genre, and yet some might hold the opinion that superhero movies are mediocre examples of the film form. You can simulatenously understand that something is very popular and still have the belief that it's a mediocre example of the form - heck in some circles you can be very highly paid to express exactly those opinions!

Yeah, some people think that about superhero movies or chicken nuggets: this is what is known as "heresy." We say, if any should deny the beauty of superhero movies, Anathema Sit! If any should deny the deliciousness of chicken nuggets, Anathema Sit!

I think 4E failed due to presentation and PR SNAFUs, not the system. 5E is largely the same system as 4E in any meaningful sense, but has succeeded due to presentation and good engagement with people.

However, if we were to grant the idea that system matters all that much, the only way a game system can be said to matter is helping people play the game, hence popularity and personal experience is the only valid measure. hence, 5E cannot be said meaningfully to be a mediocre system if it succeeds at what an RPG system is meant to do.