This reminds me me of my old adage that I have just thought up: if you get on well with the other players and you are on the same wavelength, the system doesn't matter. If you don't get on well with the other players and are not on the same wavelength, then why are you gaming with them?
Either way you cut it, system is overrated.
This reminds me of de Jasay's old point that if politicians abide by sensible norms of conduct you don't really need a constitution, and if they don't then a constitution won't help restrain them. This is not quite true in games (what Nassim Taleb pompously calls "the ludic domain"), where rules are generally an effective constraint on action. But RPGs are an exception within the exception; they aren't about winning or losing in the strict sense (winning means everybody is happy to play again next week), so the original point has force. If people are on board with the campaign, you don't really need to abide by the rules or pay too much attention to the system. If people aren't, the rules won't help.
The exception within the exception within the exception is circumstances in which figuring out the intricacies of the system itself is part of the fun. I'm thinking here of games like D&D 3rd edition, GURPS, and the like. In those cases, system clearly matters; but I suspect the only people who get into those systems in the first place are the groups who enjoy that sort of game. By definition, then, people who play them consistently are already "on board" with the system, and the point becomes moot.
I generally agree with all of that... with the exception I feel like 'narrative' games (vs. 'traditional' ones, like D&D) that enable more 'Player agency' require more harmony between Players.
ReplyDeleteI can get along well enough to play D&D with a group of strangers... but (based on experience) I'd only want to play more narrative (storygames) with people I am actively friends with.
You're right, and it goes against the entire point of the story game movement - "better" rules to protect players from bad GMs / groups. Story game fail.
DeleteYes - my experience as well. But I think that's partly because all of them seem to self-consciously be about 'edgy' themes. It's more about subject matter than rules.
DeleteI'm inclined to agree with you, though I'm aware of the old debates about this. E.g.,
ReplyDeletehttp://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/system_does_matter.html
If system doesn't matter, then why do so many players fuss about the edition of D&D in use at the table, or the use or non-use of dungeon procedure rules, or "rulings not rules," or any number of other system matters?
If I follow you, maybe it's because they lack a good player group.
Yeah, I guess I'm on the fence.
My son's middle-school 5e player group have been asking him, less than six months into their first excursions into role-playing games, "Why does armor keep me from getting hit instead of absorbing damage?" And so the cycle begins again with another generation.
Whatever the case, you make some good points.
I think it's more likely just that 'narcissism of small differences' thing. People who are really into a hobby - any hobby - like to argue about its intricacies.
DeleteI agree that the narcissism of small differences is a real phenomenon. But one still finds self-identified OSR gamers holding their noses at the dreaded Storygame players. Probably the reverse is true, too. So we need to add the narcissism of large differences into the mix. Having fun is, it seems, very serious business.
DeleteSorry: I wrote this reply and then looked up to notice ongoing discussion above about this very phenomenon. I do not mean to pick on anybody, but it does illustrate my point.
@Lich Van Wrinkle
DeleteIt seems obvious you are an indie-gamer masquerading as a former old schooler. Why the charade?
@Lich - in the grand scheme of things, the distinction between OSR gamers and storygamers is the narcissism of exceedingly small differences indeed.
Delete"...if politicians abide by sensible norms of conduct you don't really need a constitution, and if they don't then a constitution won't help restrain them." Whew, welcome to the United States of America. :~(
ReplyDeleteIt's the case everywhere, so don't beat yourself up about it.
DeleteI think there's a lot of excluded middle there. At both of the extremes, the system doesn't matter, but there's a wide stretch in between where it can do a lot to help guide everyone towards the same wavelength.
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to disentangle that from setting (implied or explicit). Is it the rules of Cyberpunk 2020 that lead to a certain style of play, or the feel/mood?
DeleteThe one thing I miss most from story games is the emergent nonsense that you get out of fiddly rulesets. More of my "most memorable" rpg events have occurred because of rules or rules interactions, not because someone did a cool thing. Also, nobody values the cool thing that was permitted to happen because the GM handwaved a rule that would have otherwise prohibited it.
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree with that.
DeleteIn terms of hierarchical precedent, you are correct, players take precedent over any given system, there is no game that will make it enjoyable to play with people that are not in synch, but that does not mean it does not matter.
ReplyDeleteI feel you rush to a premature conclusion. If system is largely irrelevant, why is there a wildgrowth of different systems as time stretches on, why do some systems or methods of resolution survive or die out, and why do we have it at all if its arbitrary?
System is required because it models the simulation your are trying to create in a way the GM cannot with the same level of depth or fealty. A superior system does this smoothly and introduces mechanics that add to the enjoyment, complexity or smooth over tedium. A poor system is inefficient, has strange immersion-breaking artifacts or fails to cover core areas that the GM cannot easily handwave or resolve himself.
"why is there a wildgrowth of different systems as time stretches on, why do some systems or methods of resolution survive or die out, and why do we have it at all if its arbitrary?"
DeleteBecause nerds like making up systems and for a long time the culture of RPGs has been that whenever anybody comes up with a new setting they also tend to make a brand new system for it.
We don't have an ecology in which there are lots of generic systems which compete against each other with the best triumphing. Rather, there is an overabundance of non-generic systems and some generic ones, with games being bought and played mostly because people are interested in the genre, setting and mood.
It's not that there are no objectively superior or inferior systems. It's just that this does not particularly matter.
Ah, but when said nerds come up with such a new system they tend to base it off of the framework of an existing one, no? These choices are made or discarded based on something other then whimsey and systems can fail or disappoint because they do not invoke the same feel or experience as others.
DeleteIn terms of what attracts people I think you are correct in observing that most people will buy something for setting, mood or because it has good art. But will you agree that a campaign setting can have a system bolted to it that can help it to achieve that mood or setting or themes, or alternatively, a system that can hinder that? If so it could influence the net enjoyment people derive from SF-game A and convince them to go to SF-game B instead. The mood and the genre might be similar, but if its easier to use or generates more interesting situations that could affect your decision to buy it.
To simplify a multitude of examples; I would posit the (relative) failure of D&D 4e was caused because its system/gameplay had departed too far from what people remembered as D&D.
I think your final paragraph proves a point of some kind: the quality of the system doesn't matter very much. I'm given to believe that D&D 4th edition worked well on its own merits and was very 'coherent'. But people didn't like its 'feel'.
Delete