# Jon Peterson: Does System Matter?



## Ath-kethin (Feb 7, 2021)

An interesting read, if not a surprising one.

To my mind, a TTRPG should provide rules for things that require rules; combat and magic need rules because they need a measure of fairness in their adjudication. A character is assumed to be much more skilled with the use of a sword (for example) than a player is. Combat rules provide a framework in which the character can operate in that environment independent of the player's skill.

Social situations, on the other hand, can be more easily handled by a player's capabilities. At most, a mechanic can exist that allows for a character to be more socially capable than the player (on the same logic as the combat rules, above), but as players can reasonably be expected to know how to talk and carry on a conversation such interactions just require less rules coverage.

Does a game with more detailed combat rules than social rules actually encourage combat over discussions? Only inasmuch as the game relies on dice rolls to function. I've yet to see a rule set with detailed social interaction mechanics that didn't feel like its purpose was to restrict what options I had in social situations rather than accommodate what I might want to do in them.


----------



## willrali (Feb 7, 2021)

Yes, system does absolutely matter. There are more than a few popular systems out there (I shall not name) that are extraordinarily bland and same-y. Interchangeable spells, powers, weapons, abilities, so on.

A system provides the framework, and inspiration, for the power fantasy that players are living out.


----------



## AmerginLiath (Feb 7, 2021)

While the focus here is of course on OG games, I was amused by the idea of D&D being predicated on “the seeking” and combat as something to be gotten past as quickly as possible, similar to ways I’ve heard OD&D and AD&D described as being basically puzzle-boxes where combat was an obstacle to be avoided. Yet (and I don’t mean this as a judgment for or against), the main discussion particularly online over the past twenty years of the d20 era has been combat and combat optimization. Even within D&D, system matters!

(I’ve noted before that I’ve played since my childhood in late 1st edition but didn’t run any games until the tail end of 2nd edition and then into 3.0/3.5, so my own views on system generations is in-between)


----------



## Waller (Feb 7, 2021)

If system doesn't matter, why are we all playing 5th Edition D&D and not 4th Edition?

Clearly system matters.


----------



## Stalker0 (Feb 7, 2021)

Having played several systems now, the system absolutely effects the play experiences. Everything is colored by the system's underpinnings, and the same group playing a different system will play differently....I have seen it many times.


----------



## Lord Mhoram (Feb 7, 2021)

System Matters. 
I'm looking at universal game systems and GURPS plays different than HERO different than Genesys and all of them are different from Cypher. The structure of a system can push a type of play, and within that structure character choices are limited or encouraged by the system.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 7, 2021)

Different systems just _feel_ different. You can use any system to play any genre, sure, but sometimes you're just putting it in a costume. A specifically tailored system can make the game feel completely different, even with the exact same players and GM.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 7, 2021)

Morrus said:


> Based around the concept that 'D&D can do anything, so why learn a new system?', the conversation examines whether the system itself affects the playstyle of those playing it. Some systems are custom-designed to create a certain atmosphere (see _Dread's _suspenseful Jenga-tower narrative game), and_ Call of Cthulhu_ certainly discourages the D&D style of play, despite a d20 version in early 2000s.



The d20 _Call of Cthulhu_ doesn't get enough credit for being one of the best introductions for new players and GMs to Cthulhu.  There was some excellent advice in those pages for new GMs on how to run a horror game, great ideas for running campaigns in different decades (40s, 50s, 60s), and even ways to adapt the Cthulhu mythos for use with D&D.  And while it did use the d20 system, they set it up in such a way as to discourage D&D style hack & slash combat while keeping things relatively easy.  

I am one of those players who argues that system matters.  I came to this conclusion nearly thirty years ago when I tried to use AD&D to run a campaign based of a fantasy book I liked and found the rules were largely incompatible with that idea. D&D is fairly generic but it's not generic fantasy.  These days, I much prefer it when designers create rules designed elicit a particular style of play for their games.  _Alien_ is a fantastic example of a recent publication with its rules designed to emulate the sci-fi horror or even the action seen in the movies the game is based on.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 7, 2021)

MGibster said:


> _Alien_ is a fantastic example of a recent publication with its rules designed to emulate the sci-fi horror or even the action seen in the movies the game is based on.



The recent _Aliens_ RPG is fantastic.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 7, 2021)

Morrus said:


> The recent _Aliens_ RPG is fantastic.



I have yet to play it.  :-(  I own the main book, the starter set, the Destroyer of Worlds boxed set, and am contemplating the purchase of the new marines expansion but I won't get a chance to play it until this whole COVID thing wraps up.  

But let's talk about why _Aliens_ is such a fantastic RPG and a good example of why system matters.  One of the core mechanics of _Aliens_ is Stress level and the Stress Dice. For those of you unfamiliar with the game, the Stress mechanics introduces a little uncertainty and tension which is great for a horror game. For every level of Stress you have, you roll one extra Stress Die when rolling your skill dice. So if you would normally roll 6 dice for your Heavy Machinery skill, if your character had 3 Stress you'd roll 6 skill dice + 3 Stress dice for a total of 10 dice. This actually increases the odds of success but also increase the odds that your character will panic and lose control. This is a mechanic that works rather well for a horror game but would be terrible if implemented in a heroic fantasy like D&D.


----------



## aramis erak (Feb 8, 2021)

Morrus said:


> Different systems just _feel_ different.



Not "just _feel _different", but feel different and some times work different.


Morrus said:


> The recent _Aliens_ RPG is fantastic.



There's no _s _on it. ALIEN, not Aliens. Aliens is the old one by Leading Edge.

I'll note that the GM's I've seen claiming "system doesn't matter" are the same ones who don't actually use the system mechanics in play.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Feb 8, 2021)

I think it is obvious that certain mechanics and rules play out in a particular way to give flavor to a game.

However, I also think there are a lot of games where system actually doesn’t matter that much, and the familiarity a group has for a particular system is sometimes more advantageous in getting immersed into a game than any mechanical particulars about how or when you roll certain dice. Sometimes the mechanical differences between games are overstated for their impact and people’s preferences are just circumstantial. Is there any reason why, for example, that Shadowrun’s mechanics are specifically suited to the game over another system? Would it have been damaged as a gameplay experience if it used a generic rules system, like D20 or GURPS instead? I dunno, but I’m sure there would be people willing to debate it.


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Feb 8, 2021)

Does system _matter?_ Yes, unequivocally.

Does system _control?_ No, unequivocally.

These arguments remind me of the hoopla over the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Everyone prefers to talk about the strong version, "language CONTROLS thought," which is much more dramatic and consequential...and also trivially false, on top of never being advocated by the scientists in question. The weak version, "language can INFLUENCE thought," is nearly self-evident, as things like advertising jingles, propaganda, the Sator Square, and the Sublime Rhyme trope demonstrate...and yet no one wants to talk about that version.

It is always possible to bend a system toward what you want it to do. It will just be easier or harder to pull off, and you will get variable degrees of support. Frex, you could try to turn Werewolf: the Apocalypse into a truly class-based game, but the system will fight you and you'll probably never be totally satisfied with the result, and likewise you could turn 3e into a totally point-buy driven game, but it's probably never going to be free of the myriad balance issues riddled through its structure unless you strip it down to just the d20 core and rebuild it entirely (at which point, is it even still 3e, or is it "just" a new d20 game?)


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Feb 8, 2021)

System is everything in most games. System is what translates the artwork and crappy corebook fiction into player experiences (or fails to).

I'll never forget one of my earliest experiences (in Traveller) when my PC, with great dramatic flair, shot an NPC with a weapon that was described as 'equal to a .44 Magnum', and did two points of damage.

Seven rounds later, after shooting the guy six times (and another PC shooting him the same number of times) the NPC fled.

I nearly quit the hobby after that session, and I did give up on Traveller black box. I never forgot it, though.

If the mechanics cannot deliver, the game will fail.

Some setting, Call of Cthulhu being a prime example, are different; in those games the system is less important than the GM's ability to set and maintain a tone.


----------



## Paragon Lost (Feb 8, 2021)

The first time I played DnD in 1978 I was hooked. It enabled the magic of reading a book you loved by placing you within the book. Ttrpg's have always been for me about that. That said, even after that first session I knew I wanted a lot more than DnD offered. The original system and 1st Ed. AD&D were to limited and lacked mechanics I wanted. 

 Which quickly led me to dive into Runequest 1st/2nd Edition and Traveller. Systems that were more robust and adaptable to the options I demanded from the base mechanics of any rpg I played or GM'd. Hell even 1982's Palladium Rpg was superior to DnD in my opinion when it came out, though it was a mess. I just know that when GURPs came out in 1986 I was sold on the strengths of it's base system. 

 Even though I say that, I still am interested in playing/trying various ttrpgs and I back a lot of Kickstarters. Currently I've got eight or nine in various stages that I'm backing.  To me system does matter, a good system can free you or empower your game. A bad system retrains and gets in the way. In my opinion none of the DnD editions are good systems, though I'll admit that 5e has come a long way from all the previous editions. That's just my opinion after being a part of this hobby for 43 years this March.


----------



## Jack Daniel (Feb 8, 2021)

System does indeed matter—obviously, trivially—unless the GM is only _pretending _to use the system in question and is actually using the game rules as a cover/pretense for running a freeform game (which I _hate_—just a bit of personal trauma from my earliest days in the hobby, when I played with a DM who ostensibly ran D&D but clearly didn't care to bother with any rules at all).

That said, I do take issue with "system does matter" as a _slogan_, because all too often it's a brickbat being swung at GMs who prefer one system. The unspoken assumption behind "system does matter" is that everyone ought to be using different, bespoke systems for different genres of RPG, and if you use GURPS for everything—or, heaven forbid, D&D for everything—you're some sort of heretic. Variety is a fine thing and all, but I nevertheless get sick of the attitude that playing a variety of RPGs is some sort of gamer-geek _requirement_.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 8, 2021)

Ultimately, it depends on what you mean by "does system matter"? In some ways, it obviously does, but in other ways it doesn't. I'm not at all convinced that specific choices of random generators makes that much of a difference in the grand scheme of things. The d20 of Mutants and Masterminds and the 3d6 of Champions isn't a factor in making the two systems really different - rather, it's way the games handle the effects of combat and powers on their targets. The M&M Toughness save and the results it can generate leads to a very different feel for the game than Champions damage, defenses, and ablating Stun and Body. Similarly, whether D&D uses a d20+modifiers to hit a static DC or Call of Cthulhu has players rolling d100 under their skill value, both are shooting for a character having a particular chance of success based on how much has been invested in that skill and the difficulty of the task. The fact that D&D is a leveling system with substantial growth in ability and Call of Cthulhu characters advance more gradually and in confined areas (and almost never related to gaining more capacity to soak damage) makes them play very differently as campaign games.


----------



## Campbell (Feb 8, 2021)

I think *system matters* was an unfortunate choice of words. I think something like* game design matters *gets the point across more effectively because we are talking about games, not just systems. Games have objectives, procedures, reward systems, mechanics, and defined player roles. System implies that only dice mechanics and things on character sheets are provided by the game. That's like just looking at the surface of the iceberg.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 8, 2021)

Campbell said:


> System implies that only dice mechanics and things on character sheets are provided by the game. That's like just looking at the surface of the iceberg.



It doesn't to me.  System implies the whole kit 'n kaboodle from character generation to the entirety of the rules.


----------



## TrippyHippy (Feb 8, 2021)

Campbell said:


> I think *system matters* was an unfortunate choice of words. I think something like* game design matters *gets the point across more effectively because we are talking about games, not just systems. Games have objectives, procedures, reward systems, mechanics, and defined player roles. System implies that only dice mechanics and things on character sheets are provided by the game. That's like just looking at the surface of the iceberg.



Yeah, it’s not just the rules. It’s the premise that sells me more than anything. I can forgive messy rules to a degree, if the core idea of what the game is about is compelling in itself.


----------



## TheSword (Feb 8, 2021)

Is there any evidence at all to suggest a player is conditioned by the first set of rules they learn to play with? Or is that just one game designers opinion as I suspect it is.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 8, 2021)

TheSword said:


> Is there any evidence at all to suggest a player is conditioned by the first set of rules they learn to play with? Or is that just one game designers opinion as I suspect it is.



In my experience it's often difficult to get players out of a D&D mindset but I expect a lot of that just has to do with player expectation inculcated through their experience with little to do with the actual rules.  (And I wish to make it clear that I'm not bashing D&D here.  I've been playing and running D&D for many years now and it's a game I like.)  Some of it has to do with the rules, I remember one non-D&D fantasy I ran and when I mentioned a giant was approaching the player shut out my description of it thinking it was just like a regular 18-25 foot tall giant when it towered over 100 feet.  But a lot of it just has to do with their expectations for how an adventure works in D&D versus how it might work in another setting.  I find the desire to loot to be near universal among gamers for example.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 8, 2021)

Ath-kethin said:


> I've yet to see a rule set with detailed social interaction mechanics that didn't feel like its purpose was to restrict what options I had in social situations rather than accommodate what I might want to do in them.



Which RPGs do you have in mind with this comment?


----------



## turnip_farmer (Feb 8, 2021)

AmerginLiath said:


> While the focus here is of course on OG games, I was amused by the idea of D&D being predicated on “the seeking” and combat as something to be gotten past as quickly as possible, similar to ways I’ve heard OD&D and AD&D described as being basically puzzle-boxes where combat was an obstacle to be avoided. Yet (and I don’t mean this as a judgment for or against), the main discussion particularly online over the past twenty years of the d20 era has been combat and combat optimization. Even within D&D, system matters!



Indeed. I got my 5e players to try out an OSR game, and while they enjoyed it, it ended in a TPK. 5e had strongly conditioned them to the approach that any monster can be overcome by just hitting it over and over.


----------



## TheSword (Feb 8, 2021)

turnip_farmer said:


> Indeed. I got my 5e players to try out an OSR game, and while they enjoyed it, it ended in a TPK. 5e had strongly conditioned them to the approach that any monster can be overcome by just hitting it over and over.



Does 5e really teach people that everything can be killed/overcome? Or is that more of a case of adventure design?

Or perhaps even game design. Most people are familiar with computer games that have a level/area capped with a boss you need to proceed. They aren’t avoidable... they’re the end level boss.

If adventures are designed where all threats are CR +/-3 and have natural choke points that require defeating a powerful enemy, of course people are going to think they need to keep fighting that enemy and take increased risks to do so.

Games like Witcher or Skyrim with optional bosses and open exploration buck this trend, but  usually make enemy power explicit with red skull symbols etc. However, DM telegraphing usually isn’t as obvious as a red skull symbol hovering over the creature’s name and I can understand how players get confused.

It seems to me, that 5e can have level appropriate challenges and particularly difficult challenges just like any other system. It’s adventure writers and DMs that decide difficulty level.

[Edit] I’ll also add that with the intention of making level appropriate threats scary and atmospheric we often use the same telegraphing that you would use for a more powerful threat. This has the effect of muddying the water and smokecreening the non-CR Appropriate challenge. Also PCs are used to doing things that other folks can’t do, that’s why they’re adventurers. Finally, all too often identifying challenges outside of your threat relies on meta game knowledge (Oh my god guys, it’s a beholder, run) rather than knowledge their character would have.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 8, 2021)

TheSword said:


> Does 5e really teach people that everything can be killed/overcome? Or is that more of a case of adventure design?



Why can't it be both? It's not exactly a secret that the OSR crowd was not super thrilled with 5e D&D despite WotC attempting to woe them over,* and one of the reasons was "combat as sport vs. combat as war." 

* ...and then promptly abandoned them once WotC discovered they had a massive hit on their hands and didn't need the OSR crowd. 



TheSword said:


> It seems to me, that 5e can have level appropriate challenges and particularly difficult challenges just like any other system. It’s adventure writers and DMs that decide difficulty level.



Can? Sure. But that doesn't mean that 5e doesn't tend to overwhelmingly treat combat more as sport rather than war and design things accordingly.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 8, 2021)

TheSword said:


> Does 5e really teach people that everything can be killed/overcome? Or is that more of a case of adventure design?



It's both. The system is vastly more survival than, say, _Call of Cthulhu_, where getting into a fight is a dangerous endeavour. CoC teaches you the hard way not to wade into combat at the drop of a hat.


----------



## TheSword (Feb 8, 2021)

Morrus said:


> It's both. The system is vastly more survival than, say, _Call of Cthulhu_, where getting into a fight is a dangerous endeavour. CoC teaches you the hard way not to wade into combat at the drop of a hat.



Sure combat is more deadly. Of the two ‘combat-is-dangerous’ systems I’ve played Cthulhu and WFRP, both still had plenty of combat encounters though. Less than typical d&d adventure sure, but is that because d&d adventures are traditionally designed that way because of XP system that’s partly phased out.

Sure in those two games in theory you’re less likely to start a random fight and find peaceful solutions instead, yet often in published adventures and homebrew the fights are meant to be fought, and are telegraphed that way. I can’t think the last time my D&D Frostmaiden group picked a fight with a random. I can think of plenty of times they tried to avoid a combat because of low resources.

Im not convinced that deadly combat systems stop players trying to hit things... they just make the consequences of not hitting hard enough, much worse.


----------



## Campbell (Feb 8, 2021)

TheSword said:


> Is there any evidence at all to suggest a player is conditioned by the first set of rules they learn to play with? Or is that just one game designers opinion as I suspect it is.




It's evident in conversations I have had here and elsewhere that there are large swathe of folks who define what a roleplaying game is or can be in relation to the culture of play engendered by games like AD&D Second Edition/ Fifth Edition D&D. That when encountering a new game they think they already know how to play/run it.

I have personally experienced this phenomenon at live tables numerous times.


----------



## TheSword (Feb 8, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> Why can't it be both? It's not exactly a secret that the OSR crowd was not super thrilled with 5e D&D despite WotC attempting to woe them over,* and one of the reasons was "combat as sport vs. combat as war."
> 
> * ...and then promptly abandoned them once WotC discovered they had a massive hit on their hands and didn't need the OSR crowd.
> 
> ...



I’m not sure I understand your sport vs war piece?


----------



## TheSword (Feb 8, 2021)

Campbell said:


> It's evident in conversations I have had here and elsewhere that there are large swathe of folks who define what a roleplaying game is or can be in relation to the culture of play engendered by games like AD&D Second Edition/ Fifth Edition D&D. That when encountering a new game they think they already know how to play/run it.
> 
> I have personally experienced this phenomenon at live tables numerous times.



Can you expand on what that culture is?


----------



## Morrus (Feb 8, 2021)

TheSword said:


> is that because d&d adventures are traditionally designed that way because of XP system that’s partly phased out.



My opinion hasn’t changed since 20 minutes ago.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 8, 2021)

The essay by Jon Peterson is helpful in that it illuminates something that is common in most field; nothing is truly new under the sun.

As far back as the birth of the hobby, people have argued about whether the system* matters, and whether the first system (or the predominant system) conditions players to approach other systems with certain expectations. In the 70s and early 80s, these arguments were held at tables, in magazines, and at conventions; later, these same arguments were later held via BBS or usenet, still later through various websites and forums (including this one).

Yet, the hobby continues. And the arguments recycle periodically, sometimes given different names, sometimes with enhanced vigor, sometimes with science-y sounding terminology to give cover to the same debate, yet the argument is essentially unchanged.

At a certain point, many gamers move past these scarred theoretical battlefields to concentrate on the joys of actual play.

Does the system matter? Maybe. A little. But not that much. There is not some deep, structuralist meaning; a need to find the universal grammar of TTRPGs that is just waiting for Noam Chomsky. Most games easily allow modification, changes, additions, and so on; the elevation of the "system" (of the rules dictating play) often obscures the actuality of the play experience. The banal observation that people get used to the game they play the most does not seem to prevent other games from being played, either.**

Enjoy the games you play. That is, as ever, the only thing that matters. Not the system. 



*Using this as a loose term for aTTRPG set of rules.

**Very few people would say that playing a sport conditions people such that they cannot learn to play other sports with different rules.


----------



## TheSword (Feb 8, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> The essay by Jon Peterson is helpful in that it illuminates something that is common in most field; nothing is truly new under the sun.
> 
> As far back as the birth of the hobby, people have argued about whether the system* matters, and whether the first system (or the predominant system) conditions players to approach other systems with certain expectations. In the 70s and early 80s, these arguments were held at tables, in magazines, and at conventions; later, these same arguments were later held via BBS or usenet, still later through various websites and forums (including this one).
> 
> ...



I agree. It does a little. But it doesn’t have any where near as much influence as the kinds of stories you’re telling, or most of all the quality of the group you’re playing with.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 8, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> The essay by Jon Peterson is helpful in that it illuminates something that is common in most field; nothing is truly new under the sun.
> 
> As far back as the birth of the hobby, people have argued about whether the system* matters, and whether the first system (or the predominant system) conditions players to approach other systems with certain expectations.




To have this be an argument would seem to me to entail a lack of understanding of people.  People form habits of thought.  Of course they are conditioned with certain expectations.  That hardly seems worth arguing over.

What may be more useful is discussion what you need to do to break folks out of their expectations in a useful way _before they try_ a game that defies their expectations.




Snarf Zagyg said:


> **Very few people would say that playing a sport conditions people such that they cannot learn to play other sports with different rules.




Yes, but dismissing the point means you don't discuss how to teach them.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 8, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> **Very few people would say that playing a sport conditions people such that they cannot learn to play other sports with different rules.



Nobody said people cannot learn new approaches. That’s a straw man. The essay suggests that often they do not, not that they cannot. Of course they _can_.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 8, 2021)

TheSword said:


> I’m not sure I understand your sport vs war piece?



There is an old thread (2012) on ENWorld that discusses it here. The idea also gets referenced and rephrased in various ways in the Principia Apocrypha, a pdf pamphlet essentially on common principles of OSR games. You are welcome to familiarize yourself with the principles on your own time. 

I have no doubt that you will object after reading through that - "But 5e can do that too!" - but just because it can doesn't mean that it does with any regularity or effort, which is one reason why OSR has mostly walked away from 5e. 

More often than not, 5e falls back on combat as sport in its principles, design, and teaching, and people often treat it as the typical mode, with the OSR crowd generally regarding 5e as more in the "combat as sport" mode that was prevalent from 3e onwards (if not 2e). Worth considering: If 5e can do "combat as war" and follow other OSR principles, then why has the OSR crowd largely ignored 5e and not adopted it?


----------



## TheSword (Feb 8, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> There is an old thread (2012) on ENWorld that discusses it here. The idea also gets referenced and rephrased in various ways in the Principia Apocrypha, a pdf pamphlet essentially on common principles of OSR games. You are welcome to familiarize yourself with the principles on your own time.
> 
> I have no doubt that you will object after reading through that - "But 5e can do that too!" - but just because it can doesn't mean that it does with any regularity or effort, which is one reason why OSR has mostly walked away from 5e.
> 
> More often than not, 5e falls back on combat as sport in its principles, design, and teaching, and people often treat it as the typical mode, with the OSR crowd generally regarding 5e as more in the "combat as sport" mode that was prevalent from 3e onwards (if not 2e). Worth considering: If 5e can do "combat as war" and follow other OSR principles, then why has the OSR crowd largely ignored 5e and not adopted it?



Thanks for the article references. I definitely like the concept of combat as War and prefer my games to play that way. I’m really interested to see if a few of the optional rules in DMG like lingering injuries, and slow healing move people in that direction. 

I can’t help feeling that the biggest difference in the example the OP gave though was as follows. In the Sport example there was a balanced bee encounter. In the War example there were hundreds of giant bees that made combat impossible. It wasn’t that combat would be difficult... it was ruled out. That is a product of encounter design not rule design (which is exactly what you guessed I would say). 

I just think that the OSR community is more willing to accept that inherent unfairness than a typical player would and thrive on the challenge that presets. Is that a rules issue? Possibly with an XP system that rewards combat. I’m not sure Milestone levelling hasn’t dealt with that issue though.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 8, 2021)

TheSword said:


> Thanks for the article references. I definitely like the concept of combat as War and prefer my games to play that way. I’m really interested to see if a few of the optional rules in DMG like lingering injuries, and slow healing move people in that direction.
> 
> I can’t help feeling that the biggest difference in the example the OP gave though was as follows. In the Sport example there was a balanced bee encounter. In the War example there were hundreds of giant bees that made combat impossible. It wasn’t that combat would be difficult... it was ruled out. That is a product of encounter design not rule design (which is exactly what you guessed I would say).
> 
> I just think that the OSR community is more willing to accept that inherent unfairness than a typical player would and thrive on the challenge that presets. Is that a rules issue? Possibly with an XP system that rewards combat. I’m not sure Milestone levelling hasn’t dealt with that issue though.



Much like @Morrus, I answered your question as "both" rather than "either/or" and classes, races, etc. are also arguably designed in 5e with combat as sport in mind.


----------



## TheSword (Feb 8, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> Much like @Morrus, I answered your question as "both" rather than "either/or" and classes, races, etc. are also arguably designed in 5e with combat as sport in mind.



For the record I think system does matter. Just nowhere near as much as adventure design/story and group.

It has an influence, I just don’t believe it makes as much difference as the designers of those systems would like to believe (to return to the original article)

I also think in a game... all combat is sport in one way or another... though I know that’s not the specific point the article was referencing, it’s worth bearing in mind. The fact that OSR enjoy Extreme Difficulty doesn’t stop being sport.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 8, 2021)

TheSword said:


> For the record I think system does matter. Just nowhere near as much as adventure design/story and group.
> 
> It has an influence, I just don’t believe it makes as much difference as the designers of those systems would like to believe (to return to the original article)



Then why don't you play Dungeon World again? 



TheSword said:


> I also think in a game... all combat is sport in one way or another... though I know that’s not the specific point the article was referencing, it’s worth bearing in mind. The fact that OSR enjoy Extreme Difficulty doesn’t stop being sport.



I think you are trying to (unsuccessfully) equivocate the principles, though I'm not sure if this comes from misunderstanding them or what.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 8, 2021)

Morrus said:


> Nobody said people cannot learn new approaches. That’s a straw man. The essay suggests that often they do not, not that they cannot. Of course they _can_.




I think that saying "straw man" is a way to end a conversation, not have one.

So I will be brief- I was not making an absolutist point, as I thought was obvious. Most people would reasonably assume that you can get introduced to various games, sports, or other things via one "system" or "rule set," and while you might get used to that, it would be bizarre to say that you are conditioned to that particular set of rules such that you have trouble switching.

I think that using that pejorative language when it comes to TTRPGs evinces a failure of imagination; in that people saw TTRPGs as "too different" _at that time_, and the D&D was too dominant, but I don't think that this is correct.

But sure, STRAWMAN. Thank you.


----------



## TheSword (Feb 8, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> Then why don't you play Dungeon World again?



Because we generally play games that are made by the people who are telling stories that we like. I find Dungeon World utterly unimpressive in that regard. As would my group.

Pathfinder 1e, D&D, WFRP have all released great stories. I don’t think it’s coincidence that we’ve played adventures written by each of them in each of the other systems (with the exception of PF adventures in WFRP rules - just because it’s newer). The system wasn’t as important as the stories we were telling.

I only stopped playing PF 1e when our group felt the system was getting in the way of the groups enjoyment and a good story. Though it took a long time for that to happen. 5e was well into its 3rd year when we switched. Rules are sticky and as has been discussed elsewhere often the effort of learning a new system just doesn’t feel worth it.

The similarities between PF and 5e are substantial but we can agree I’m sure that WFRP and 5e/PF is a substantially different system and yet adventures translate just fine when the group is right.


----------



## dragoner (Feb 8, 2021)

Of course system matters, in the sense that nothing really matters, not here, playing games. This question is sort of "the rocket house has no brakes" as it collides with other questions and maxims.

5e was built for ease of use, an engineering principle too, and then they capitalized on it.
People are lazy, and will play what they know.
More rolls are just more chances for failure (had someone get hostile in a Traveller group when I mentioned this).
A publisher mentioned they removed actively offensive material in a supplement, because one of the writers objected; then again, why was it in there in the first place?
So much of this stuff slides easily into a fail state; DnD has inertia that can keep it going over rough spots, smaller games, it is far too easy to find a substitution. Many times if not enough people showed up for our pub game, one player usually had a board game they were hot to try out.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 8, 2021)

TheSword said:


> Because we generally play games that are made by the people who are telling stories that we like. I find Dungeon World utterly unimpressive in that regard. As would my group.



Does that have anything to do with the fact that Dungeon World hasn't released adventure paths since that would be antithetical (if not counterproductive) to how the system works? The "great stories" of Dungeon World are pushed by the complications that are triggered from the dice and the fiction rather than from pre-scripted adventures. 



TheSword said:


> Pathfinder 1e, D&D, WFRP have all released great stories. *I don’t think it’s coincidence that we’ve played adventures written by each of them in each of the other systems (with the exception of PF adventures in WFRP rules - just because it’s newer). *The system wasn’t as important as the stories we were telling.
> 
> ...
> 
> The similarities between PF and 5e are substantial but we can agree I’m sure that WFRP and 5e/PF is a substantially different system and yet adventures translate just fine when the group is right.



You're right. It's not a coincidence. (I also have my doubts that the group has much to do with it.) A big part of that has to do with common culture of GM responsibilities/power, "GM as author," and that whole pre-written adventures/stories thing that exists between these systems.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 8, 2021)

TheSword said:


> I only stopped playing PF 1e when our group felt the system was getting in the way of the groups enjoyment and a good story.



So you're saying system mattered so much that you actually changed games because of it?


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 8, 2021)

dragoner said:


> Of course system matters, in the sense that nothing really matters, not here, playing games. This question is sort of "the rocket house has no brakes" as it collides with other questions and maxims.
> 
> 5e was built for ease of use, an engineering principle too, and then they capitalized on it.
> People are lazy, and will play what they know.
> ...




It becomes more of an issue of path dependency than sort of "system matters."

The reason people play certain sports in certain parts of the world isn't "system matters" and you are conditioned to certain sports; it's because other people play it, learn it, teach it, and there are networks in place. This is true not just within (and between) geographic areas, but within and between socioeconomic groups. 

It's easier to simply note that certain features of a game or a rule system tend to develop and become entrenched over time due to path dependency, and that, over time, it becomes more difficult to switch out without completely. 

To go to the last point you made; it could be said that D&D (or even editions of D&D, for example) is a certain sui generis style of TTRPG that benefits from being the default. In much the same way that if you get a sufficiently large group of people together, you are unlikely to go to the place that you really want to go eat, but are likely to go to a place that everyone can agree on. Perhaps a place that has a sufficiently diverse menu of options that everyone is familiar with. It might not be anyone's top choice, but everyone will find something tolerable. 

Call it the Cheesecake Factory theory of TTRPGs.


----------



## TheSword (Feb 8, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> Does that have anything to do with the fact that Dungeon World hasn't released adventure paths since that would be antithetical (if not counterproductive) to how the system works? The "great stories" of Dungeon World are pushed by the complications that are triggered from the dice and the fiction rather than from pre-scripted adventures.
> 
> 
> You're right. It's not a coincidence. (I also have my doubts that the group has much to do with it.) A big part of that has to do with common culture of GM responsibilities/power, "GM as author," and that whole pre-written adventures/stories thing that exists between these systems.





Morrus said:


> So you're saying system mattered so much that you actually changed games because of it?



It did matter eventually. We stuck with PF because like many people it fitted what we played before (3e) and because we liked Paizo’s style and story telling.

Though as I said, I didn’t say system doesn’t matter, I said it’s less important than other factors. The Adventure Paths/stories and the Group mattered more.

Then the quality of Paizo’s APs tailed off and weight of bumph became greater than we liked. There was nothing inherently wrong with the system. Just the weight of product had made the game unwieldy. I’ll let other people debate whether that is a system issue or a business model issue.


----------



## TheSword (Feb 8, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> You're right. It's not a coincidence. (I also have my doubts that the group has much to do with it.) A big part of that has to do with common culture of GM responsibilities/power, "GM as author," and that whole pre-written adventures/stories thing that exists between these systems.



You mean between *most* systems, not just those systems.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 8, 2021)

TheSword said:


> Though as I said, I didn’t say system doesn’t matter, I said it’s less important than other factors. The Adventure Paths/stories and the Group mattered more.



You may be misunderstanding what is meant by "matters" when it comes to "system matters." You seem to be reading 'matters' as a factor of "to whom" rather than its "effect." 



TheSword said:


> You mean between *most* systems, not just those systems.



I mean *these* systems. It may be prevalent in most systems, but I mean *these *much as I wrote.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 8, 2021)

D&D has, of course, evolved over the years in system and most common playstyle that the system encourages. And, especially back in the old-school days, the rules were confusing and loose enough that different play styles emerged just from folks trying to understand how to play.

But, on the surface at least, we were all playing the same game, D&D. Today with 5+ editions under our belts and dozens (hundreds? thousands?) of OSR games that try to embody a specific style of D&D play . . . but it's all still D&D on the surface . . . it's understandable I think for folks to learn one system/style of D&D and mistakenly assume that all D&D plays that way (the various editions, the various OSR games, and other D&D-adjacent games).

I think the variety of playing styles within the D&D circus tent, and all of the other wonderful not-D&D games out there, is a beautiful thing . . . but I also think that folks making assumptions on "how-to-play" based on their first D&D experience is understandable and normal. If you are a DM/GM starting up with a new gaming group, it behooves you to survey your players' past experiences and then maybe talk about expectations and style of the game you are going to run . . . and then good-naturedly roll with it when folks still make wrong assumptions during play. As long as everybody remembers that they are playing a game and doesn't get too worked up over "mistakes", it'll all work out in the end.


----------



## wingsandsword (Feb 8, 2021)

Yes, system matters.

That's why we have different preferences of editions, some of us play 5e, some play 3.x, some play OD&D, some play AD&D 1e, some play everything in between.

However, I will say that there's a reason that D&D has been so widely adapted to other purposes. . .because while it's not the best possible game for every situation, it usually works at least adequately.

That was the whole point behind so many of the d20 games of the early-to-mid 2000's, that it's quicker and easier for gamers to learn and play a game that's much like a game they already know. . .and if I may be quite blunt, a LOT of games out there have been just awful with their rules.

More than once have I bought a game and thought it had an awesome setting, but the included system was unplayable or generally awful.  Designing a game system and designing a setting are two completely different skill sets, and there have been games with good rules, games with good settings, but rarely one with both.

A lot of d20 adaptations of games, like Call of Cthulhu, may not have been perfect, but they were pretty good. . .they were pretty good at getting people to pick up games they never would have looked at before, and they were pretty good at adapting the existing system to the setting and making it work better than whatever they'd try to cobble together on their own.


----------



## TheSword (Feb 8, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> You may be misunderstanding what is meant by "matters" when it comes to "system matters." You seem to be reading 'matters' as a factor of "to whom" rather than its "effect."
> 
> 
> I mean *these* systems. It may be prevalent in most systems, but I mean *these *much as I wrote.



I mean it in terms of impact on ensuring an enjoyable gaming session as stated in my post.

All such judgements will be subjective so I can see how you would misunderstand this as relating to a person.

Then I will make it clear that *most* systems have an element of pre-written stories whether by a GM or publisher. There is a reason for that.


----------



## Haffrung (Feb 8, 2021)

AmerginLiath said:


> While the focus here is of course on OG games, I was amused by the idea of D&D being predicated on “the seeking” and combat as something to be gotten past as quickly as possible, similar to ways I’ve heard OD&D and AD&D described as being basically puzzle-boxes where combat was an obstacle to be avoided. Yet (and I don’t mean this as a judgment for or against), the main discussion particularly online over the past twenty years of the d20 era has been combat and combat optimization. Even within D&D, system matters!
> 
> (I’ve noted before that I’ve played since my childhood in late 1st edition but didn’t run any games until the tail end of 2nd edition and then into 3.0/3.5, so my own views on system generations is in-between)



Combat optimization became a central element with the parallel release of 3rd edition and the growth of online forums. The fact some communities of longtime players intensely disliked 3e, to the point where you were not allowed to even mention that edition, shows that the game was not always focussed on combat for everyone. 

And when WotC carried out the biggest RPG market research and playtest in history for Next, the development leads remarked repeatedly that they were surprised by the results showing combat and number-crunching optimization were not the big draw for most players.

So 3e =/= historic D&D norms and online discourse has never been representative of the wider D&D culture.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 8, 2021)

TheSword said:


> I mean it in terms of *impact on ensuring an enjoyable gaming session* as stated in my post.
> 
> All such judgements will be subjective so I can see how you would misunderstand this as relating to a person.



Which is not what the 'matters' in "system matters" means, with yet again an emphasis on enjoyment seemingly implying that your central reference here is "to whom" in relation to enjoyment.



TheSword said:


> Then I will make it clear that *most* systems have an element of pre-written stories whether by a GM or publisher. There is a reason for that.



There are definitely reasons for that, though not necessarily the one you presume.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 8, 2021)

Campbell said:


> I think *system matters* was an unfortunate choice of words. I think something like* game design matters *gets the point across more effectively because we are talking about games, not just systems.






Aldarc said:


> Which is not what the 'matters' in "system matters" means, with yet again an emphasis on enjoyment seemingly implying that your central reference here is "to whom" in relation to enjoyment.




Is this thread now a discussion on the exact -- but, importantly, _separate_ -- meanings of the word "system" and "matters"? I think we've reached peak internet, folks! We did it!


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 8, 2021)

Morrus said:


> Is this thread now a discussion on the exact -- but, importantly, _separate_ -- meanings of the word "system" and "matters"? I think we've reached peak internet, folks! We did it!



Yeah, I think it's a general misunderstanding (or possibly equivocation) of what is meant by "system matters." I didn't think that hitting 'peak internet' was necessary for this thread, but here we are. We're at the peak, and there's no where to go but down from here.


----------



## TheSword (Feb 8, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> Which is not what the 'matters' in "system matters" means, with yet again an emphasis on enjoyment seemingly implying that your central reference here is "to whom" in relation to enjoyment.
> 
> 
> There are definitely reasons for that, though not necessarily the one you presume.



I think the question of whether the system creates an enjoyable experience for players, be they simulationist, gamist or narrativist (if that’s a word) is exactly what the post is about.

Enjoyment and satisfaction are the holy grail of all games. Else why bother. Outside the corner cases of teaching kids interpersonal skills. (Incidentally one of my players does this and gets paid a decent amount of money to do it, go figure!)


Aldarc said:


> There are definitely reasons for that, though not necessarily the one you presume.



The same reason for most things that are supplied in large numbers... Demand.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 8, 2021)

TheSword said:


> I think the question of whether the system creates an enjoyable experience for players, be they simulationist, gamist or narrativist (if that’s a word) is exactly what the post is about.
> 
> Enjoyment and satisfaction are the holy grail of all games. Else why bother. Outside the corner cases of teaching kids interpersonal skills. (Incidentally one of my players does this and gets paid a decent amount of money to do it, go figure!)



Sure, enjoyment matters, but that's not what "system matters" is about, Charlie Brown.


----------



## TheSword (Feb 8, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> Sure, enjoyment matters, but that's not what "system matters" is about, Charlie Brown.


----------



## turnip_farmer (Feb 8, 2021)

Morrus said:


> Is this thread now a discussion on the exact -- but, importantly, _separate_ -- meanings of the word "system" and "matters"? I think we've reached peak internet, folks! We did it!



I dunno, we're well on course for hitting 2,000 posts on the appropriateness of halfling agriculture in a standard DnD setting. I think that debate could out-internet this any day of the week.


----------



## practicalm (Feb 8, 2021)

As we dance around the meaning of matters, I want to add another concept into the discussion.

Intent of the system or design has an impact on how both the GM and the players approach their games.

Some examples.  First Edition Paranoia was a bit of a mess.  Here was something that was to be humorous and light in a Computer run world but the first edition game rules did not make it easy to keep it light.  The resolution system was more complicated than the game needed.  It was played but the intent of the design did not match the intent of the rules.

Ghostbusters RPG is a great example of intent of rules matching the intent of design.  Toon as well.

I would argue that while Champions (later Hero System) was a fun superhero game, it never was able to capture the feeling of comic books until you tweaked the character to make it so.  Champion fights tended to be a slugfest of running one side out of END.  Or finagling some NND power to stun your opponents or killing powers to kill.  I think Champions worked because it created the kind of game people were willing to play but it didn't really match the source material quite as well as some later games.

D&D is about power acquisition.  Gaining levels.  Gaining magic items.  Gaining wealth.  All to increase power.
This is why I don't like playing modern or future settings in D&D because I feel the intent of the rules runs counter to what I want the intent of a modern game setting to be.

James Bond RPG works for spy games because you are already assumed to be fairly competent and the agency you work for is going to make sure you have the tools for the job (or at least the tools it thinks you need)

The players (including the GM) are coming together with the intent of building a type of story.  The story might shift during play as opportunities and challenges are taken and responded to.  Rules should support the intention of the story the players are building.

I think a lot of tables don't think about what story they are interested in or leave it up to the GM to pick the story intent.  People in this discussion are probably an exception.  I like to ensure session 0 makes it clear the kind of story that is planned and people need to build characters to support that.  If they do not wish to, they should find another game.  Many people will just go along with the flow and so D&D works for them because their story is gaining power.  They want to do cool stuff.  Not realizing there are games where they can start with their character being able to do that cool stuff.
I find that I want players to think about where they want their character to go not just in gaining power but how the character will develop over the campaign.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Feb 8, 2021)

Then why isn't can't I find people to play in my Slice of life Farmer all Commoner 3.5 campaign?


----------



## pemerton (Feb 8, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:
			
		

> As far back as the birth of the hobby, people have argued about whether the system* matters, and whether the first system (or the predominant system) conditions players to approach other systems with certain expectations. In the 70s and early 80s, these arguments were held at tables, in magazines, and at conventions; later, these same arguments were later held via BBS or usenet, still later through various websites and forums (including this one).
> 
> Yet, the hobby continues. And the arguments recycle periodically, sometimes given different names, sometimes with enhanced vigor, sometimes with science-y sounding terminology to give cover to the same debate, yet the argument is essentially unchanged.
> 
> ...



I'm not really sure what the point is here. Are you arguing that there has been no change or development in RPGing since 1974? If that's not your argument, then what is it?

Do you think designers like Luke Crane and Vincent Baker and Greg Stafford are/were not interested in the joys of actual play?

I have active campaigns in multiple systems - Classic Traveller, MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic, Prince Valiant, Burning Wheel. These are different systems. They produce different play experiences. They are enjoyable in different ways.

It would be strange for an advocate of cinema to argue that _technique doesn't matter_. Or to suggest that there's no difference between Star Wars, Manhattan and The Seventh Seal - "they're all just cinema!"

In fiction, there's a difference between (say) LotR, REH Conan and Graham Greene.

In RPGing, I can testify from experience there's a big difference between (say) the essential light-heartedness of Prince Valiant and the demanding "weight" of Burning Wheel. And both are different from Classic Traveller, which in play will reveal relatively little about the characters themeslves and is much more focused on the external world they inhabit.



TheSword said:


> For the record I think system does matter. Just nowhere near as much as adventure design/story and group.
> 
> It has an influence, I just don’t believe it makes as much difference as the designers of those systems would like to believe (to return to the original article)





TheSword said:


> Because we generally play games that are made by the people who are telling stories that we like. I find Dungeon World utterly unimpressive in that regard. As would my group.
> 
> Pathfinder 1e, D&D, WFRP have all released great stories.





TheSword said:


> *most* systems have an element of pre-written stories whether by a GM or publisher. There is a reason for that.



I don't know what the basis is for your quantitative claim.

But anyway, the whole notion of _adventure design_ and _telling stories _is something that is system-dependent, so you've already shown that system _does_ matter. None of the games I've mentioned in this post, as played by my group, involve _designed adventures_ or _released great stories_. And none of them, played as written, will support such things. (MHRP claims to, but there is a huge tension between that claim and the actual resolution procedures - you would have to just ignore these procedures to get the game to fit into a designed adventure.)

I would also add: my active games are all with the same group. The differences between them aren't driven by the group, they're driven by the systems.

Here are some simple differences that matter:

* Classic Traveller has almost no mechanics that pick up on, or respond to, or affect, the commitments or "inner life" of the character;​​* MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic does not incorporate fictional positioning into resolution unless the participants make the effort, as part of the resolution process, to bring it under the umbrella of mechanics. This produces a feeling of "setting as backdrop" which from time to time gets starkly foregrounded - it was invented for super hero play, but I think also works well for JRRT;​​* In Prince Valiant, "damage" taken simply results - as a mechanical matter - in incapacitation. It is always up to the GM to decide what, in the fiction, follows from that incapacitation, and hence how serious it is and how long it takes to heal. As a general rule, therefore, there is no PC death unless the fictional positioning absolutely demands it (eg the damage results from falling a great height or being swallowed by a dragon or something similar);​​* In Burning Wheel failure rates can be in excess of 50% - this is one cause of the feeling of "weight" or "oppression" punctuated by occasional victory that is (in my view) a hallmark of BW play.​
None of these games will produce a 5e D&D-like play experience.


----------



## dragoner (Feb 9, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> It becomes more of an issue of path dependency than sort of "system matters."
> 
> The reason people play certain sports in certain parts of the world isn't "system matters" and you are conditioned to certain sports; it's because other people play it, learn it, teach it, and there are networks in place. This is true not just within (and between) geographic areas, but within and between socioeconomic groups.
> 
> ...



I don't necessarily want to get in trouble again for saying everything is fine, but everything is indeed fine imo. I mean, 5e has so much going for it (we are on a 5e site now judging by most posts) than one can totally wrap themselves in D&D all day long and never run across old stuff. Fairly impressive the amount of capitalization going on, and definitely not matched by any other system.

The other thing is the sunk cost fallacy (_The sunk cost fallacy reasoning states that further investments or commitments are justified because the resources already invested will be lost otherwise._) Which isn't totally false considered time learning, though there are also factors such as a game being well written, and it leads along until one finds it broken, but ultimately easier to fix than to try something different. The other is a game that is solid rules wise, except the writing is bad, so it is difficult to learn.


----------



## TheSword (Feb 9, 2021)

pemerton said:


> I don't know what the basis is for your quantitative claim.



looking at the number of substantial scale ttrpg games that have an active GM involved in shaping the story. D&D, Pathfinder, Cthulhu, WFRP, Dark Heresy, the many White Wolf games, L5R, One Ring and on and on. In fact when I say most games, I mean the overwhelming majority of TTRPG.



pemerton said:


> But anyway, the whole notion of _adventure design_ and _telling stories _is something that is system-dependent, so you've already shown that system _does_ matter. None of the games I've mentioned in this post, as played by my group, involve _designed adventures_ or _released great stories_. And none of them, played as written, will support such things. (MHRP claims to, but there is a huge tension between that claim and the actual resolution procedures - you would have to just ignore these procedures to get the game to fit into a designed adventure.)
> 
> I would also add: my active games are all with the same group. The differences between them aren't driven by the group, they're driven by the systems.
> 
> ...



I bet all the money in my pockets that the reason these work for you is because of the preferences and tendencies of your group first and foremost. Followed by you and your players skill in telling stories.

Another group dropped into those systems wouldn’t necessarily have the same level of success and yet you could probably tell very similar tales if forced to adopt something else. Do you truly think that the little extra survivability; the little extra difficulty; or the willingness to resolve interactions without rolling dice fundamentally change the the stories you and your players tell.

I strongly suspect that there are many other game systems that would equally satisfy you and your group. It isn’t the system that makes this work, it’s the players and you.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 9, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> It becomes more of an issue of path dependency than sort of "system matters."
> 
> The reason people play certain sports in certain parts of the world isn't "system matters" and you are conditioned to certain sports; it's because other people play it, learn it, teach it, and there are networks in place. This is true not just within (and between) geographic areas, but within and between socioeconomic groups.




On an overall cultural level, sure.  But, to find the limit of the sports analogy - for an individual participant in sports, system does matter.  This is most easily seen in how few professional athletes can successfully transition between sports.  The football linebacker isn't going to be able to compete in swimming, for example.  

And, we can then note that, if the culture around them is focused on one sport that they don't care for or aren't particularly good at, maybe a person will find another sport, or maybe they won't play any sports at all.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 9, 2021)

dragoner said:


> The other thing is the sunk cost fallacy (_The sunk cost fallacy reasoning states that further investments or commitments are justified because the resources already invested will be lost otherwise._) Which isn't totally false considered time learning...




Oh, it is still false.  Time learning the first game is already spent, just like dollars spent.  It is gone.  Staying with the first game will not get you that time back.  The question of how much fun you have in the future is not really related to how much time you spent learning a game in the past.

However, getting _over_ the sunk cost fallacy of learning time is part of what I'm talking about - how do you present or structure your game to not elicit the sunk cost fallacy reaction?


----------



## Hex08 (Feb 9, 2021)

System is very important but I didn't always believe that. I finally realized it when I decided to run a Cthulhu (Realms of Cthulhu) game using Savage Worlds and it didn't work out. From a role-playing perspective it was fine; players and game masters roleplaying is not system dependent. Where the problem came in was exploding dice. The final fight at the end, which was supposed to be super challenging and potentially very deadly didn't make it very far into the second round before a player got a lucky shot and destroyed the big bad easily. The exploding dice removed all sense of danger from the game.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Feb 9, 2021)

This relevant tweet is an oldie but a goodie...


----------



## pemerton (Feb 9, 2021)

TheSword said:


> I bet all the money in my pockets that the reason these work for you is because of the preferences and tendencies of your group first and foremost.



Isn't this a tautology? Ie that what people enjoy is dependent upon their preferences?



TheSword said:


> Another group dropped into those systems wouldn’t necessarily have the same level of success



Do you mean they wouldn't enjoy it? Or that they would struggle with the technical demands of the system? The latter is probably plausible for Burning Wheel, or even Traveller, but hard to take seriously for Prince Valiant which is mechanically a _very_ straightforward system.

The former seems almost certainly true for some groups, but that is simply because they prefer different things. The fact that _the same RPG system_ won't satisfy _different preferences_ is a demonstration that system matters, not that it doesn't! (In fact this is Ron Edwards main point in his essay on "System Matters".)



TheSword said:


> and yet you could probably tell very similar tales if forced to adopt something else. Do you truly think that the little extra survivability; the little extra difficulty; or the willingness to resolve interactions without rolling dice fundamentally change the the stories you and your players tell.



I just posted that my group has _different experiences_ playing different systems. "Telling tales" has nothing to do with it.

Here's an episode of play from Burning Wheel:



pemerton said:


> At the start of the session, Thurgon had the following four Beliefs - _The Lord of Battle will lead me to glory; I am a Knight of the Iron Tower, and by devotion and example I will lead the righteous to glorious victory; Harm and infamy will befall Auxol no more!_;_ Aramina will need my protection_ - and three Instincts - _When entering battle, always speak a prayer to the Lord of Battle_; _If an innocent is threatened, interpose myself_; _When camping, always ensure that the campfire is burning_.
> 
> Aramina's had three Beliefs - _I'm not going to finish my career with no spellbooks and an empty purse! - next, some coins!_; _I don't need Thurgon's pity_; _If in doubt, burn it!_ and three instincts - _Never catch the glance or gaze of a stranger_; _Always wear my cloak_; _Always Assess before casting a spell_.
> 
> ...




There's no way for that to happen in (say) Classic Traveller. Or 5e D&D for that matter.

(When I talk about _that happening_ I'm not talking about _the fiction created_. I'm talking about the experience of play which, among other things, _created that fiction_.)


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 9, 2021)

MichaelSomething said:


> This relevant tweet is an oldie but a goodie...



Incidentally, cavegirl has made comments that she's sick of the toxicity of the OSR community and her current Kickstarter ("Dungeon Bitches") runs on PbtA.


----------



## aramis erak (Feb 9, 2021)

Jd Smith1 said:


> System is everything in most games. System is what translates the artwork and crappy corebook fiction into player experiences (or fails to).
> 
> I'll never forget one of my earliest experiences (in Traveller) when my PC, with great dramatic flair, shot an NPC with a weapon that was described as 'equal to a .44 Magnum', and did two points of damage.
> 
> ...



Having run a bunch of CT  back in the day... that on its face feels fishy as hell.
No corebook for CT has an 'equal to a .44 Magnum' pistol. In fact, Neither does Mercenary.
In the editions I've run, only one pistol, a 5mm body pistol, can do 2 points, as it's a 2d6 damage; the two others are 9mm pistols doing 3d6, and there are no damage modifiers.
So, I decided to do some rules archeology.
The CT 1E damage and listed caliber for the 3 pistols: Body Pistol: 3d6-6 5mm; Autopistol 3d6-3 9mm; Revolver 3d6-3 9mm.
The CT 2E LBBs as presented on the CT CD: Body Pistol 3d6 5mm; Autopistol 3d6 9mm; Revolver 3d6 9mm.
CT's Traveller Book: Body Pistol 2d6 5mm; Autopistol 3d6 9mm; Revolver 3d6 9mm.

So... you GM mis-described the weapon and/or made a poor choice in up-rating to reflect the redesignation.


Jack Daniel said:


> System does indeed matter—obviously, trivially—unless the GM is only _pretending _to use the system in question and is actually using the game rules as a cover/pretense for running a freeform game (which I _hate_—just a bit of personal trauma from my earliest days in the hobby, when I played with a DM who ostensibly ran D&D but clearly didn't care to bother with any rules at all).



Not just yours...


Jack Daniel said:


> That said, I do take issue with "system does matter" as a _slogan_, because all too often it's a brickbat being swung at GMs who prefer one system. The unspoken assumption behind "system does matter" is that everyone ought to be using different, bespoke systems for different genres of RPG, and if you use GURPS for everything—or, heaven forbid, D&D for everything—you're some sort of heretic. Variety is a fine thing and all, but I nevertheless get sick of the attitude that playing a variety of RPGs is some sort of gamer-geek _requirement_.



The thing is, the phrase "system matters" is the shortest phrase that holds the semantic connotations that rules influence play."


TheSword said:


> Is there any evidence at all to suggest a player is conditioned by the first set of rules they learn to play with? Or is that just one game designers opinion as I suspect it is.



Very little valid evidence, but tons of anecdotal support.
It's not just the rules, tho' - if the group was a "barely uses the rules" GM and players who spent most of the session in character voice, it's going to be a different situation from a "D&D as a tactical miniatures game" with players who describe their characters in the 3rd person. 
It's not a straightjacket, but it does have lasting effects - both in terms of expectations, and of how relevant rules are to the playstyle. Not always good ones. For example, me... I started with AD&D ... and with a not-quite minis game approach, and dungeons as press-your-luck. I find that less than interesting these days.


TheSword said:


> Does 5e really teach people that everything can be killed/overcome? Or is that more of a case of adventure design?
> [snip]
> 
> It seems to me, that 5e can have level appropriate challenges and particularly difficult challenges just like any other system. It’s adventure writers and DMs that decide difficulty level.



5E isn't "everything can be killed" in any way that all prior D&D's aren't. 
It is, however, far more forgiving of allowing yourself to stay in combat at low HP totals than all prior D&D editions...
In prior editions, 0 HP is out and dying. In 5E, there's slightly better than 50% odds of survival without intervention or magic. That has lead to some seriously reckless play.


Morrus said:


> Nobody said people cannot learn new approaches. That’s a straw man. The essay suggests that often they do not, not that they cannot. Of course they _can_.



I disagree that people are always capable of learning new approaches; it's sad to say, but there are some who are sufficiently inculcated to ways of thinking that they cannot escape their prior experiences' effects, and those experiences blind them to present room for change. 
There aren't that many of them, but... there are reasons the aphorisms "a lion cannot change his spots" and "you can't teach an old dog new tricks" have lasted a long time.
Further, as age progresses, the ability to process text slows down, per recent research. (SciShow Psych ep in last 4 days.)



wingsandsword said:


> Yes, system matters.
> 
> That's why we have different preferences of editions, some of us play 5e, some play 3.x, some play OD&D, some play AD&D 1e, some play everything in between.
> 
> ...






Umbran said:


> Oh, it is still false.  Time learning the first game is already spent, just like dollars spent.  It is gone.  Staying with the first game will not get you that time back.  The question of how much fun you have in the future is not really related to how much time you spent learning a game in the past.
> 
> However, getting _over_ the sunk cost fallacy of learning time is part of what I'm talking about - how do you present or structure your game to not elicit the sunk cost fallacy reaction?



In the case of learning a new game, it isn't always a fallacy, tho'.
In any given case, the question is, "Can the old game do the new setting/campaign/path to an acceptable level?" If yes, then the sunk cost isn't a fallacy; one has a net time cost for the new system which is already paid for the old one.
If no, then the sunk cost is irrelevant.
But as general rule, the knowable answer is "maybe." And so the sunk cost still isn't a fallacy, and doesn't collapse to one until it is tried and fails.


Aldarc said:


> Incidentally, cavegirl has made comments that she's sick of the toxicity of the OSR community and her current Kickstarter ("Dungeon Bitches") runs on PbtA.



The title alone was enough to make me say, "Nope!" 
The hover-text blurb reinforced that; not a genre I'm interested in playing. My kids might... but only if they find it from persons other than me. Due to the name, I'm not even going to mention it to my teen nor 20-something.

I really wish people would stop with the intentionally offensive titles and cover art. From where I sit, her work appears just as toxic as several noted OSR authors. Sufficiently so as to not bother looking any deeper.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Feb 9, 2021)

aramis erak said:


> Having run a bunch of CT  back in the day... that on its face feels fishy as hell.
> No corebook for CT has an 'equal to a .44 Magnum' pistol. In fact, Neither does Mercenary.
> In the editions I've run, only one pistol, a 5mm body pistol, can do 2 points, as it's a 2d6 damage; the two others are 9mm pistols doing 3d6, and there are no damage modifiers.
> So, I decided to do some rules archeology.
> ...




Since your insensitivity to my pain brought us here, I dug as well. The weapon comparison is from p.29 'Antique equivalents'. There, the passage of years took its toll: the revolver is compared to a Colt Python (.357 Magnum), whereas I had remembered it as a .44 Magnum.

Damage 3d6.

So yes, having undone decades of therapy, you have corrected my memory: three points instead of two, equivalent to a .357 Magnum. (although I could have sworn it was two points; perhaps I ran afoul of a house rule).

Still, my point remains: the clunky (boy, having had to check back through the Black Books really brought that back) mechanics did not live up to the expectations in the blurbs. Give that this took place just a few years after the first Star Wars came out, it was especially a let-down: no blasters, and simple gun battles that dragged on forever.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 9, 2021)

My experience with Classic Traveller is quite a bit different: it plays pretty quickly, and no one really looks forward to getting shot.

I think it's only happened to the PCs three times: a PC got taken down by a rifle shot while sneaking up on an enemy pill-box; a PC was killed by SMG fire; and a PC took a graze while grapping with an NPC to take control of the latter's SMG.

It's possible to roll 2 or less damage for a handgun - 3D-3 can give that result - but it's not all that likely (a bit less than 1 in 20) and equally likely is 13+, which as a first shot taken will knock nearly any character unconscious.

But despite some marketing copy to the contrary, trying to use Traveller to play Star Wars will be basically hopeless. Another example of _system matters_.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 9, 2021)

Hex08 said:


> System is very important but I didn't always believe that. I finally realized it when I decided to run a Cthulhu (Realms of Cthulhu) game using Savage Worlds and it didn't work out. From a role-playing perspective it was fine; players and game masters roleplaying is not system dependent. Where the problem came in was exploding dice. The final fight at the end, which was supposed to be super challenging and potentially very deadly didn't make it very far into the second round before a player got a lucky shot and destroyed the big bad easily. The exploding dice removed all sense of danger from the game.




That's an interesting point.

I think that many people too tightly associate the lore of a game with the rules of the game. For the most part, in classic hobbyist DIY fashion, the rules are simple enough in terms of resolving mechanics, and lore can be changed, modified, or added easily. 

For example, there are innumerable examples of people that have modified classic Sci-Fi games (such as Star Frontiers or Traveller) to play a Star Trek or Star Wars campaign. There are countless examples of people that have modified classic RPG rules (B/X, OD&D, 1e, etc.) to play other fantasy settings, whether they go for more "Tolkienesque" or more ersatz Donaldson or Moorcock or May or something else. But it's just as possible to use the ruleset and resolution mechanism of Moldvay and apply it to a cyberpunk setting, or use it for Star Wars.

In that sense, the system isn't that important. Because many times, the classic RPGs tended to have more of a divide between the RP elements and the G elements, and the rules was a way of adjudicating the G elements. 

What you illustrate is the issue of the rules providing ways of adjudicating the narrative elements. That tends to be more controversial, so I don't really want to address that in depth. I would just say that some people prefer that the rules remain agnostic as to the narrative elements, and others prefer that the rules specifically address the narrative elements. Put in more plain English, and using your example: there are those that like rules that would allow the big bad to be taken out in one shot, because that would create unexpected and interesting emergent stories, and those that prefer that the rules allow for that not to happen, because certain genres (horror, comedy, for example) are more difficult to maintain unless you there is some ability to ensure that some random outcomes are not allowed.

In my opinion, etc.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 9, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> For example, there are innumerable examples of people that have modified classic Sci-Fi games (such as Star Frontiers or Traveller) to play a Star Trek or Star Wars campaign. There are countless examples of people that have modified classic RPG rules (B/X, OD&D, 1e, etc.) to play other fantasy settings, whether they go for more "Tolkienesque" or more ersatz Donaldson or Moorcock or May or something else. But it's just as possible to use the ruleset and resolution mechanism of Moldvay and apply it to a cyberpunk setting, or use it for Star Wars.
> 
> In that sense, the system isn't that important.



If they have to modify it, the system is clearly important.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 9, 2021)

Morrus said:


> If they have to modify it, the system is clearly important.




I was discussing the difference between the ruleset (system) as action resolution system, and the lore on top of it. I will write more clearly in the future.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 9, 2021)

aramis erak said:


> In the case of learning a new game, it isn't always a fallacy, tho'.




Oh.  Perhaps you misunderstand the fallacy?

A "sunk cost" is a cost that has already been incurred, that cannot be recovered.  Sure, you can sink resources into learning a game.

The fallacy is in, "Since I have sunk this cost, I should stick with this product/project."  The fallacy is that the sunk cost should have any bearing on how you move forward.  In fact, the sunk cost does not increase the likelihood or value of success or benefit going forward.

If your computer is on the fritz, and you paid $400 for repairs and it still doesn't work, that $400 should not be part of the calculation on whether you spend more money to repair the machine, or just get a new machine.  

Say you just finished a D&D campaign, and spent hundreds of hours on it.  The time and money you spent on that campaign does not tell you whether or not you should pick up Savage Worlds for your next campaign.  The next campaign should be analyzed for its own cost and merits, not the costs sunk in the past.


----------



## turnip_farmer (Feb 9, 2021)

Umbran said:


> Oh.  Perhaps you misunderstand the fallacy?
> 
> A "sunk cost" is a cost that has already been incurred, that cannot be recovered.  Sure, you can sink resources into learning a game.
> 
> ...



Everyone knows what the sunk cost fallacy is. They're saying it doesn't apply because changing system imposes a cost which sticking with the system you know doesn't.

If I know how to play DnD, and nothing else, the time investment in learning required to play is zero.

The investment in time learning a new system and, potentially, in books, for any other other system is non-zero.

Choosing an option that requires the least future investment is not an example of the sunk cost fallacy


----------



## PsyzhranV2 (Feb 9, 2021)

aramis erak said:


> I really wish people would stop with the intentionally offensive titles and cover art. From where I sit, her work appears just as toxic as several noted OSR authors. Sufficiently so as to not bother looking any deeper.



Being edgy and provocative isn't the same as being offensive and toxic, inasmuch as edginess and procativeness can be used to make an artistic point as opposed to just trying to hurt people/piss them off/drag them down.

The title may be shocking, for sure, but having scanned the Kickstarter page, the previews look pretty well put together. Certainly nothing I'd call "toxic"; the game does have some pretty heavy themes and imagery, but in a way that suggests "transgression as means of catharsis/working it your own issues", not "screw those random people who did nothing wrong for no reason in particular". Honestly it doesn't look like anything out of the ordinary as far as emotionally-charged PbtA goes.


----------



## dragoner (Feb 9, 2021)

turnip_farmer said:


> Everyone knows what the sunk cost fallacy is. They're saying it doesn't apply because changing system imposes a cost which sticking with the system you know doesn't.
> 
> If I know how to play DnD, and nothing else, the time investment in learning required to play is zero.
> 
> ...



Yes, it is only a sunk cost fallacy if one uses the sunk cost in justifying something one shouldn't, like playing a game one doesn't want to play.

I mean there was a learning curve with M-Space, and we played out a Steampunk-Byzantium adventure where there was a zeppelin blown off course to Monster Island; then parlayed that experience to running Caverns of Thracia with Mythras, only as the Caverns of Cyrene plus using Mythic Constantinople for both adventures. No time wasted, fun had by all.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 9, 2021)

turnip_farmer said:


> Everyone knows what the sunk cost fallacy is.




With respect, lots of people quote logical fallacies, and don't understand them fully.  The number of times folks claim in reports that a statemetn is an _ad hominem_ argument, when it is not, might stun you.



turnip_farmer said:


> They're saying it doesn't apply because changing system imposes a cost which sticking with the system you know doesn't.




Again, with respect, if the statement is of the form, "I have already spent time..." then you are implicitly engaging in the sunk cost fallacy, as you are appealing to _the value of that past time_ as support.  

If you only ever reference the future time you might spend on a new system, then maybe you can avoid the fallacy.  



turnip_farmer said:


> Choosing an option that requires the least future investment is not an example of the sunk cost fallacy




Doing so _lazily_ probably still is.  

For example, let us consider financial costs, and say you already play D&D.  Are you _never going to buy D&D content again_?  Or, if you play, are you going to keep buying new books, pdfs, adventures, and so on?  If the latter, then you already accept you have some number of dollars per year you are investing in play.  Comparing "$$ cost of new game" to "zero $$ cost of old game" only holds if you aren't actually going to spend any money on the old game.

As for time, this gets to a thing I've said repeatedly in this thread, but let us attach it to this context.

There was some time in the past in which you didn't know, say, D&D.  When presented with D&D, you engaged in the time to learn it, and probably _didn't_ consider the time you took to learn it compared to the time it takes to engage in other amusements you had.  Why not? How is it that time spent was okay, but new time spent isn't?

How is it that learning the game is considered a cost, rather than an amusement itself?  Can you approach learning in a way that keeps it from being a cost?


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 9, 2021)

Small point:

People often refer to "logical fallacies." It is rarely a good thing in terms of a improving a conversation. 

Most of the time, they are discussing one of the many informal fallacies (such as the argumentum ad vercundium or the argumentum ad hominem). Informal fallacies may be important to pay attention to, but are not necessarily incorrect in argument (ethos, logos, pathos) and are often useful as heuristics. For example, the appeal to motive is ad hominem, but it is common and accepted to both weaken an argument ("Of course she's providing an alibi- she's the wife!") as well as strengthen an argument ("He's a stalwart company man, but he admitted they poisoned the river.") 

Actual formal fallacies are fairly rare and usually quickly spotted. An example would be, "All animals are unicorns, therefore some animals are unicorns."  Or "To be a successful musician, a person has to be a hard worker or very lucky. I know a successful musician who is very lucky. Therefore, that person is not a hard worker."

Neither type of fallacy applies to other issues (such as biases and paradoxes), even when they are called fallacies. A number of cognitive biases, for example, are labelled fallacies, even though they have nothing to do with the argumentative fallacies.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 9, 2021)

Umbran said:


> if the statement is of the form, "I have already spent time..." then you are implicitly engaging in the sunk cost fallacy, as you are appealing to _the value of that past time_ as support.



Frankly that doesn't seem right.

Someone who says (eg) "I have already spent time learning D&D" is very clearly implying, even if they don't say so expressly, that they don't want to spend similar time on learning a different system. They are not appealing to the value of the past time; they are pointing to _the fact_ of past time, and expressing a desire not to spend further such time in the future.

That is why (for instance) a relevant response to such a statement might be to explain that system X is not as complex as D&D, and so won't involve the same time sink in learning how to play it.


----------



## aramis erak (Feb 9, 2021)

Umbran said:


> Oh.  Perhaps you misunderstand the fallacy?
> 
> A "sunk cost" is a cost that has already been incurred, that cannot be recovered.  Sure, you can sink resources into learning a game.
> 
> ...



The cost of system 1 is already paid; the sunk cost fallacy only exists as a fallacy when the prior paid-off item is of little or no benefit to the ongoing effort, or cannot pay off, or incurs additional costs. Perhaps that portion of it escapes you? (I'll note that that subtlety is often left out in summaries. It wasn't left out in my Psych 111 class in 1990, nor my Philosophy class in 1989, nor my various education methods classes in 2007. ) The sunk refers to unrecoverability of the expense. 

Sunk cost benefit is in fact the whole point of universal systems - a large number of genres are supported by each one I've read and used. None of them is truly universal. Once the cost for the core is paid (in time and money, or time and risk of being caught pirating), new settings within the well supported range have reduced cost to learn vs a custom system. Note that it's not uncommon for there to be little to no reduction in monetary/fiscal cost, only in (presumably uncompensated) time.

Recent case in point: The new Stargate RPG... the sunk m(unrecoverable) costs of the potential purchasers  are not a fallacy to the publisher, which is why it's using a D&D 5E derivative. It saves a large portion of mental effort learning the game. Whether or not it works for any given purchaser is a different matter, and from their point of view, the sunk cost of 5E might not have been paid. Fortunately, it's a standalone, so the fiscal costs aren't increased by not knowing/having D&D 5e, only the time and mental effort costs. Further, for some, it's not going to work. for others, it will. If GM X buys the core and it doesn't work for GM X and/or X's players, buying the supplements becomes a sunk cost fallacy if they're buying them for other than reading or collecting value. (And there are a shocking number of people who buy games just to read the fluff.)


----------



## Weiley31 (Feb 10, 2021)

I don't know if it's just me, but I've noticed lately that there are a number of System Agnostic RPG settings that seem to list themselves as system agnostic. Mork Borg has it's own system, but also allows you to use other OSRs with it without too much of a problem. So technically you can just use the Mork Bork book for your background flavor setting and then insert your preferred mechanics. (So if you wanted your Mork Bork to use the 5E engine, then its just refluffing.) When looking at the rpg news articles that pop up on here, they have listed a number of such settings and settings that use an actual system.

I guess in the end, system doesn't matter really if you reskin stuff and/or use the engine underneath while overlaying the carcass of the setting you prefer.

On my end when it comes to Vampire The Masquerade: I'm mostly a lover/interested in  the 20th Anniversary versions of the Old World of Darkness. However, I bring over the Second Inquisition and First Light into it and the lore, even though those two concepts ONLY exist in VtM 5E, its a draping that is applied upon when I need a military opposition against vampires. While the systems, I assume would be very similar, there are takes upon the mechanics in their own way.

Heart: The City Beneath, pretty much brings to my mind the Darkest Dungeon, so it's pretty much, if I wanted to do a Darkest Dungeon hack, it would pretty much use those mechanics with the lore layer on top.

Ultimately in the end, it probably depends ultimately on what you want. You could have Dungeons and Dragons as an overlayer on top of your Fantasy AGE/Dragon Age games. You could play pen and paper Warcraft but use the DND 4E system underneath.

System Agnostic RPGs probably rely, and understand, that the player base want to use an available system for such RPGs, then they can do that.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 10, 2021)

Weiley31 said:


> Heart: The City Beneath, pretty much brings to my mind the Darkest Dungeon, so it's pretty much, if I wanted to do a Darkest Dungeon hack, it would pretty much use those mechanics with the lore layer on top.



What if I told you that there was a pre-existing TTRPG upon which Darkest Dungeon was based and inspired by?


----------



## turnip_farmer (Feb 10, 2021)

Umbran said:


> For example, let us consider financial costs, and say you already play D&D.  Are you _never going to buy D&D content again_?



Quite possibly. I don't really need any other stuff, much as that may concern WotC. If a player wants to use some new spell or class option from Salty Norman's Pamphlet of Superfluities then I'm sure they'll show it to me.

But honestly money's not the major concern any more, I have plenty of disposable income these days. Time is the concern. I'm expecting to start a new campaign once Corona restrictions allow, and am struggling with the decision on this already. There's a couple of systems I know well and can do ahead and start statting up adventures for. And I know I'll have fun.

But there are also things about the systems I don't like, and I'm thinking about looking into Warhammer Fantasy or Shadow of the Demon Lord instead. But don't know which, and maybe I won't enjoy them.

So I'm choosing between guaranteed fun at little effort, which won't be perfect but nothing is. Versus learning a whole new ruleset and probably buying a published adventure or two depending on how easy the system is to get the hang of, for no guaranteed payoff at all, since maybe I just won't like the game.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 10, 2021)

Weiley31 said:


> I guess in the end, system doesn't matter really if you reskin stuff and/or use the engine underneath while overlaying the carcass of the setting you prefer.



Reading through your post again, I'm a bit puzzled though why you say this while also describing a bunch of hypotheticals in which clearly the system mattered as part of a conscientious choice to use particular games (and associated playstyles) but simply changing the color of lipstick on the pig.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 10, 2021)

System matters to me, no question.  I’m always running into situations where I can model the PC in my head better in one system than another.  Usually, HERO is my go-to, but certain characters run “better“ in different systems.

I’ve also run into situations where even basic mechanics & assumptions will sour a player on a system.  The classic example of that in my experiences as a GM was illustrated in a Mutants & Masterminds campaign.  

Unlike the original D20 systems, iterative attacks in M&M do not get individual attack rolls.  A single roll determine the result- the more successful attacks, the effects simply get ratcheted up.

2 players in addition to myself had to interact with this, and none of us liked it. The _feel_ was off.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 10, 2021)

turnip_farmer said:


> So I'm choosing between guaranteed fun at little effort, which won't be perfect but nothing is. Versus learning a whole new ruleset and probably buying a published adventure or two depending on how easy the system is to get the hang of, for no guaranteed payoff at all, since maybe I just won't like the game.



There's always _some_ payoff. You're gaming with your friends!


----------



## pemerton (Feb 10, 2021)

Weiley31 said:


> Ultimately in the end, it probably depends ultimately on what you want. You could have Dungeons and Dragons as an overlayer on top of your Fantasy AGE/Dragon Age games. You could play pen and paper Warcraft but use the DND 4E system underneath.



I've run more Rolemaster than AD&D in The World of Greyhawk. I've also used WoG for Burning Wheel. But what makes that possible is that RM shares many design features with AD&D (eg its basic idea of what FRPGing tropes look like), as does BW. Both fit the high fantasy tropes scattered among S&S defaults that are at the heart of WoG.

But it wouldn't make any sense to talk about playing WoG with Prince Valiant, and I don't think it would really make sense to try and play it with Cortex+ Heroic either (though maybe someone has done this or seen it done, and will show how I'm wrong!).


----------



## Weiley31 (Feb 10, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> Reading through your post again, I'm a bit puzzled though why you say this while also describing a bunch of hypotheticals in which clearly the system mattered as part of a conscientious choice to use particular games (and associated playstyles) but simply changing the color of lipstick on the pig.



Hey now that pig loves his lipstick!


----------



## Campbell (Feb 10, 2021)

The technical bits that most of us think about when we think of system/game design matter, but not a whole lot. At the end of the day Warhammer Fantasy, Numenera, Pathfinder and D&D are mostly the same game. They are about a group of fantasy adventurers going on adventures played by players who are mostly trying to solve the adventure of the day. The process of play is damn near identical. Differences in design are mostly technical. Those technical differences do matter, but not like a lot in the grand scheme of things.

However take something like Sorcerer with its kickers, players who are expected to play individual characters pursuing personal goals, and GMs who are expected to frame scenes and build NPCs that interact with that core PC personal drama. Suddenly that looks a lot different. The process of play has been dramatically upended. 

That's what System Matters is all about. It's about getting away from just designing those technical bits and really devoting time to designing the process of play.


----------



## PsyzhranV2 (Feb 10, 2021)

I feel that the most vivid encapsulation of "system matters" is how some groups take to the PbtA design philosophy like a fish to water, while others end up ramming their heads against the wall no matter how hard they try to grok the system. Despite Vincent Baker by his own admission writing Apocalypse World largely as a response to and criticism of Forge ideology, despite "system matters" being regarded as a tautology by current designers, and in spite of how antiquated the specifics of GNS may be in the 2020s, the phrase "system matters" will still hold truth in its broadest sense as long as there are groups who sit down to a game of Apocalypse World or Masks, try to run it like they would D&D, and utterly fail.


----------



## Haffrung (Feb 10, 2021)

Umbran said:


> There was some time in the past in which you didn't know, say, D&D.  When presented with D&D, you engaged in the time to learn it, and probably _didn't_ consider the time you took to learn it compared to the time it takes to engage in other amusements you had.  Why not? How is it that time spent was okay, but new time spent isn't?
> 
> How is it that learning the game is considered a cost, rather than an amusement itself?  Can you approach learning in a way that keeps it from being a cost?



Because most people dislike readings rules and learning new systems.

Those of us who do - who buy multiple RPGs a year, post about them on forums, and dissect and analyze their mechanics - we are _weirdos_. Even by the standards of people who play tabletop games we're weirdos. 

Out of the dozens of people I've played RPGs and boardames with, I'd estimate almost half have never read a rulebook, and most of the rest have only done so with reluctance. To them, learning a system is a necessary chore, not something to be enjoyed for its own sake. And even those who have happily engaged in learning new games in the past can become disenchanted with the cult of new and the unrelenting churn of new systems.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 10, 2021)

Haffrung said:


> Because most people dislike readings rules and learning new systems.




So... why are you learning a system like you're studying for an algebra test?

I ask again - _can you approach it in a way in which it isn't a cost_?


----------



## Haffrung (Feb 10, 2021)

Umbran said:


> So... why are you learning a system like you're studying for an algebra test?
> 
> I ask again - _can you approach it in a way in which it isn't a cost_?



_I _can. Because I like learning about rules and systems. Most people don't. Just like most people don't like changing the oil in their cars, even though some weirdos do.

I'm not sure why you regard this like some kind of problem that needs to be fixed. If it's a problem at all in the RPG hobby, it's because a fraction of hobbyists are much, much more active and engaged than the average participant is, and this disparity is found in almost every group. This fosters frustration and resentment among the hyper-engaged, especially when they gather on forums and lose sight of how oddball they are.


----------



## Campbell (Feb 10, 2021)

I do think it's somewhat of an issue that we have conditioned people into thinking playing a new game requires about as much effort as taking an undergrad course at a university. _Here are your required textbooks. Here are your worksheets. First class will be dedicated to going over the syllabus. Don't forget your pencil._


----------



## pemerton (Feb 10, 2021)

PsyzhranV2 said:


> Despite Vincent Baker by his own admission writing Apocalypse World largely as a response to and criticism of Forge ideology



I've seen this said before. I don't think it's quite right, given that the acknowledgements page of Apocalypse World (p 288):


Stakes questions are based on stakes in _Trollbabe_, by Ron Edwards.

Threat countdowns are based on bangs in _Sorcerer_, by Ron Edwards. . . .

The character sex moves were inspired by _Sex & Sorcerer_, by Ron Edwards. . . .

The entire game design follows from “Narrativism: Story Now” by Ron Edwards.

Online resources:
The Forge (indie-rpgs.com)​
I know Baker has said that AW is not a "Forge game", but by that he meant - as I read him - that it is not "hyper-focused" in the manner of the early suite of games that emerged self-consciously out of the Forge milieu. He didn't mean that the game was not influenced by, or building upon, ideas that were generated at the Forge.



Campbell said:


> The technical bits that most of us think about when we think of system/game design matter, but not a whole lot.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



My view is that there are limits to how far one can change the process of play without also turning attention to the technical differences.

One example from my own experience: Rolemaster and RQ are very similar - both are "realism"/process-simulation reactions to D&D with skill-based resolution, more "organic" rather than class-based systems of PC build, hit locations and penalties in combat, etc. Both have rules for attack and parry, but they are different: in RQ each is a separate skill; in RM each is built from a common pool, on a round-by-round basis. This means that RM allows a player whose PC is in melee to make round-by-round decisions about how to manage risk. RM's spell-casting allows a similar decision-making process, because of the rules for casting quickly and/or at higher level in exchange for an increased failure chance. (RM ranged combat doesn't have this sort of feature; hence it's the most boring of the three standard player combat build approaches found in a trad FRPG.)

_What sorts of risks do I want to take in combat _is probably not the most interesting thematic question of all time, but it is a question which RM allows to be raised and answered, with the answer varying based on what is at stake in the particular combat.

RM also has more choice in PC build than does RQ - in that way it is less "organic" and amenable to metagaming. This allows players to send signals about priorities via PC build.

These technical differences permit RM to support, in a halting way, a more scene-framing process of play than RQ. But there are other technical features of RM that get in the way: like AD&D it has fiddly spell durations; like many "ultra-sim" games it has complex healing rules; it encourages tracking ammunition, keeping track of rest times, etc - and all of this stuff makes it hard to bring scenes to a clean end and frame new ones. It's interesting to look at another superficially ultra-sim game - Burning Wheel - and see how it has some features in common with RM but also has differences, including these sorts of technical differences, that allow a more robust scene-framing process.

What I have found very valuable in Forge analysis is an appreciation of the importance of the process of play - ie there is more to RPGing than just fiddling with your rules for healing times and dice rolling systems - but also a sophisticated appreciation of the way that technical elements of design underpin and either support or cut against possible processes.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 10, 2021)

An addendum to my post just upthread: what would make ranged combat more interesting in a broadly Rolemaster framework would be a pool that involved trading of stealth/cover against basic attack bonus.

But that would be very hard to do in the system as it currently stands, because the skill-based PC build system has no way to put bow attacks and stealthily taking cover into the same "pool". So to make my idea work you'd need to use some sort of workaround via the action economy where taking cover and shooting a bow both draw from the same pool.

In RM that could quickly turn into a nightmare, as it's action economy rules even in their most straightforward version are brutally complex. I don't know much about PF2, but I understand that it uses a less complex action economy to try and achieve some similar sorts of trade-offs. (I've read about its _raising your shield_ rules for melee combat. I don't know if it has something similar for _taking cover_ that applies to ranged combatants.)


----------



## PsyzhranV2 (Feb 10, 2021)

pemerton said:


> I've seen this said before. I don't think it's quite right, given that the acknowledgements page of Apocalypse World (p 288):



It came up in a Twitter discussion he was involved in (some of the replies have been deleted)


I could have sworn he wrote more on the Forge on his Twitter, maybe he deleted those threads?


----------



## pemerton (Feb 11, 2021)

@PsyzhranV2 

Sometimes when cultural movements develop, or even break down into component or conflicting parts, those transformations and breakdowns get seized on by reactionaries to argue that the whole cultural movement was pointless or a failure.

It seems to me that there are some posters (I don't think you're one!) who want to take the sorts of remarks from Vincent Baker that you've pointed to and turn them into that sort of reactionary critique. Whereas that it is not what I take Baker himself to be doing - any more than, say, cubism reveals impressionism to have been pointless, or Picasso's later work means that everyone who never liked cubism because it was too "weird" for them was right to do so.

I hope that makes sense.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 11, 2021)

Haffrung said:


> _I _can. Because I like learning about rules and systems. Most people don't. Just like most people don't like changing the oil in their cars, even though some weirdos do.




So... do you reject the idea that maybe there's ways to learn a system other than how you do it now?



Haffrung said:


> I'm not sure why you regard this like some kind of problem that needs to be fixed.




Because I think that, with some thought, the hobby can be enriched.  An enriched hobby is good for all of us.

In the end, yes, you should play what you like.  But, we should be interested in removing barriers to people exploring various game, so they can be sure they find what they like most, and learn more of what kinds of play are available, and how they work, rather than being stuck playing what they learn first, just because the barriers to entry of games are high.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 11, 2021)

Campbell said:


> I do think it's somewhat of an issue that we have conditioned people into thinking playing a new game requires about as much effort as taking an undergrad course at a university. _Here are your required textbooks. Here are your worksheets. First class will be dedicated to going over the syllabus. Don't forget your pencil._



IME, teaching most new RPGs at an introductory level doesn't take any longer than learning a new board or card game.


----------



## Haffrung (Feb 11, 2021)

Umbran said:


> So... do you reject the idea that maybe there's ways to learn a system other than how you do it now?



I already said, I enjoy learning new systems. You enjoy learning new systems. Most of the people on this forum enjoy learning new systems. It's the muggles who don't. And because of the peculiar nature of this hobby, a typical group consists of a hyper-nerd (like us), a moderately engaged player, and several muggles. This dramatic disparity in the engagement levels of most participants in an RPG group is the unrecognized source of much of the sturm und drang of RPG forum culture.


Umbran said:


> Because I think that, with some thought, the hobby can be enriched.  An enriched hobby is good for all of us.
> 
> In the end, yes, you should play what you like.  But, we should be interested in removing barriers to people exploring various game, so they can be sure they find what they like most, and learn more of what kinds of play are available, and how they work, rather than being stuck playing what they learn first, just because the barriers to entry of games are high.



That's only a problem if most people would be appreciably happier playing a different system. But I don't believe most players - the muggles - particularly care about the mechanics of the games they play. For most players, RPG night is like poker night. It's all about the snacks, the laughs, and the camaraderie. It's only us - the hardcores - whose enjoyment is affected by whether we're using dice pools or a d20.

I buy more RPGs than I am likely to ever play. I do this because I enjoy reading and musing about running them. I'm not under any delusion I'll get them all to the table. Even though I have a pretty experienced and engaged group, with three members including myself (out of six) who will buy and read rulebooks, I can maybe slip one new RPG a year into the mix for a few sessions. I do this largely for selfish reasons - I bought the games, they excite me, and I want to try them out. My group humours me because they know I put a lot of work into GMing. But I'm not under any delusions that it makes most of them enjoy game night more.


----------



## Bacon Bits (Feb 11, 2021)

Campbell said:


> I do think it's somewhat of an issue that we have conditioned people into thinking playing a new game requires about as much effort as taking an undergrad course at a university. _Here are your required textbooks. Here are your worksheets. First class will be dedicated to going over the syllabus. Don't forget your pencil._




I mean, this is why playing D&D was so difficult that it _de facto_ required that you knew someone who already knew how to play the game before you could play the game. The fact that that point was from 1974 through about 2016 or 2017 (due to streaming and recording of live actual plays) is pretty amazing until you realize that D&D 5e is a game with -- depending on how you count them -- anywhere from 180 pages in the Basic 5e PDF to just eight pages shy of _1,000 pages_ for the PHB, DMG, and MM of _just game rules_. That's before you get to things like adventures. Given that a totally inexperienced player will have no idea whatsoever which rules are important or necessary to play, this seems like a completely ridiculous task. Like, imagine you bought a board game and the rules were 1,000 pages long. Even with starter sets it can be overwhelming.

Now you want to learn another one when nobody really knows how to play? It's not surprising that it's so daunting to people.

Every time I play a new game system I experience myself becoming a better roleplayer and a better gamer. But it's still a significant investment of time and effort which may or may not pay off.


----------



## TheAlkaizer (Feb 11, 2021)

Bacon Bits said:


> [...] to just eight pages shy of _1,000 pages_ for the PHB, DMG, and MM of _just game rules_. That's before you get to things like adventures. Given that a totally inexperienced player will have no idea whatsoever which rules are important or necessary to play, this seems like a completely ridiculous task. Like, imagine you bought a board game and the rules were 1,000 pages long. Even with starter sets it can be overwhelming.




That's something I see being repeated often, but it's just not true. There's a very clear difference between rules and content. There's not a 1000 pages of rules. The Monster Manual is almost entirely content. Most players I know played D&D for years without ever reading a single line out of the Monster Manual. Same with the Dungeon's Master Guide. As for the Player's Handbook, you skim over classes, races, make your choice and then deep dive in what interest you. The list of spells is not all relevant to you or relevant at all.

I've done it before, but give a brand new player the Player's Handbook. Tell them to read:

Page 5 to 7 for the introduction.
Page 173 to 179 for everything related to throws and ability scores.
Page 181 to 186 for adventuring.
Page 189 to 196 for the basics of combat.
Pages 201 to 202 for spellcasting, if needed.
That's it. That's 21 pages of rules written in natural language. That's all the rules you need to play. Most tabletop or card games that I played had more dense, obtuse and numerous rules than D&D 5E. Also, if you decide to play in Theater of the Mind, you can probably forego a quarter of those pages. And as opposed to a boardgame, if you misunderstand and forget a rule, it doesn't break the mind. Because D&D is not as systemically-driven as most games with a win condition.

And if we talk about a DM? Yes, one person has to invest more time. Instead of spending about 30 minutes to read the pages listed above, they probably need to read page 233 to 260 of the Dungeon's Master Guide to learn how to run the game. Then maybe spend an hour a week in a official adventure to prepare for the week's session.

There's certainly more rules and more things to learn both for players and DMs, but they're things you'll learn later and progressively. You want to create your own monster after a couple of sessions? Go read three pages in the Dungeon's Master Guide and work at it for 30 minutes.


----------



## Bacon Bits (Feb 11, 2021)

TheAlkaizer said:


> That's something I see being repeated often, but it's just not true. There's a very clear difference between rules and content. There's not a 1000 pages of rules.




The point is that if you're a brand new player with no experience at all and no understanding of how the game is played. _You don't know anything_. You don't know if you need to know what a Goblin does. You don't know if you need to understand everything in the DMG. You don't know what spells might come up or how often. You _just don't know_. You have no idea how many rules you need to keep in your head at any one time. And, most of all, you have no idea what someone has to do to actually get the game set up.

You see an advertisement for a game called X&X on your favorite YouTube channel. The ad says that it's the most popular game in it's genre. It has three Core rulebooks that you need to play, plus a set of dice. You look them up and each book is 330 pages long and costs $50. The dice are $15. You are now in a very real situation where you're going to put $165 on the line saying that you're going to read up to 1,000 pages, then find 2-4 other people who also will be willing to possibly read 1,000 pages, and then you'll all be able to sit down and _try_ to play this game.

That is what the game looks like from a layperson's perspective.


----------



## TheAlkaizer (Feb 11, 2021)

Bacon Bits said:


> The point is that if you're a brand new player with no experience at all and no understanding of how the game is played. _You don't know anything_. You don't know if you need to know what a Goblin does. You don't know if you need to understand everything in the DMG. You don't know what spells might come up or how often. You _just don't know_. You have no idea how many rules you need to keep in your head at any one time. And, most of all, you have no idea what someone has to do to actually get the game set up.
> 
> You see an advertisement for a game called X&X on your favorite YouTube channel. The ad says that it's the most popular game in it's genre. It has three Core rulebooks that you need to play, plus a set of dice. You look them up and each book is 330 pages long and costs $50. The dice are $15. You are now in a very real situation where you're going to put $165 on the line saying that you're going to read up to 1,000 pages, then find 2-4 other people who also will be willing to possibly read 1,000 pages, and then you'll all be able to sit down and _try_ to play this game.
> 
> That is what the game looks like from a layperson's perspective.



Well, yes, if someone approaches D&D entirely blindly and does very light search, it might seem overwhelming. But that doesn't seem so different from any hobbies that millions of peoples start practicing: painting miniatures, playing golf, woodworking, painting, photography. They all have a huge amount of knowledge or information that seems a bit daunting at first, they all cost a decent amount of money and often have addons or additional purchases you can make (new clubs, lenses, new knives, paint, brushes). But people go to a store, they ask questions, they read reviews or, if they're courageous, they dive in and they do it by themselves. It does not seem unique to D&D. I've had the exact same experience getting into most of the activities I do in my life.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 11, 2021)

Bacon Bits said:


> The point is that if you're a brand new player with no experience at all and no understanding of how the game is played. _You don't know anything_. You don't know if you need to know what a Goblin does. You don't know if you need to understand everything in the DMG. You don't know what spells might come up or how often. You _just don't know_. You have no idea how many rules you need to keep in your head at any one time. And, most of all, you have no idea what someone has to do to actually get the game set up.
> 
> You see an advertisement for a game called X&X on your favorite YouTube channel. The ad says that it's the most popular game in it's genre. It has three Core rulebooks that you need to play, plus a set of dice. You look them up and each book is 330 pages long and costs $50. The dice are $15. You are now in a very real situation where you're going to put $165 on the line saying that you're going to read up to 1,000 pages, then find 2-4 other people who also will be willing to possibly read 1,000 pages, and then you'll all be able to sit down and _try_ to play this game.
> 
> That is what the game looks like from a layperson's perspective.


----------



## TheAlkaizer (Feb 12, 2021)

Morrus said:


> _Image_



That too! Which is why I'm still puzzled by why there's still large-scale TTRPGs like Pathfinder 2E only offer a Starter Set a whole year after the release of its second edition. It's as incomprehensible to me as one of my past coworkers that said we could just put a tutorial in our game through a patch later down the road.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 12, 2021)

Moldvay Basic was playable out of the box by someone who had very little experience with games full stop, and none with RPGs.

I know, because I did it.

And it was possible to read all the rules - including all the monsters - as part of this process. Because it wasn't an especially long rulebook.


----------



## Haffrung (Feb 12, 2021)

TheAlkaizer said:


> I've done it before, but give a brand new player the Player's Handbook. Tell them to read:
> 
> Page 5 to 7 for the introduction.
> Page 173 to 179 for everything related to throws and ability scores.
> ...



While I agree that 5E only really has about 20 pages of rules that a player needs to learn in order to play, I disagree that the natural language used to present those rules makes the game more accessible. It's the format and layout of the rules, rather than their scope or complexity, that makes D&D more difficult to learn than it needs to be. Boardgame rules use standard instructional design elements like bulleted lists, numbered lists, white space, sidebars, clear and concise language, etc. to present rules in a much more user-friendly manner than the wall-of-text model employed by WotC and most other RPG publishers.

If you want to see RPG rulebooks designed by people who understand instructional design, take a look at Old School Essentials or Five Torches Deep. If or when WotC comes out with a 6E, they need someone who understands design and user experience put in charge of formatting the books.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 12, 2021)

Haffrung said:


> While I agree that 5E only really has about 20 pages of rules that a player needs to learn in order to play, I disagree that the natural language used to present those rules makes the game more accessible. It's the format and layout of the rules, rather than their scope or complexity, that makes D&D more difficult to learn than it needs to be. Boardgame rules use standard instructional design elements like bulleted lists, numbered lists, white space, sidebars, clear and concise language, etc. to present rules in a much more user-friendly manner than the wall-of-text model employed by WotC and most other RPG publishers.
> 
> If you want to see RPG rulebooks designed by people who understand instructional design, take a look at Old School Essentials or Five Torches Deep. If or when WotC comes out with a 6E, they need someone who understands design and user experience put in charge of formatting the books.




I think people can, and do, reasonably disagree about what a rulebook "is" and "should be" in a TTRPG.

For example, you point out OSE as being an example of "good design" for new players, and 5e as being an example of "bad design" for new players. I don't disagree with you, necessarily.

But from a practical standpoint, while I don't have the numbers in front of me, I would say that there the difference in the numbers of players who begin playing TTRPGs with 5e as opposed to OSE is, well, ... it's orders of magnitude.

Put another way- I would assert (and no, I don't happen to have evidence) that most people who are playing OSE are not playing TTRPGs for the first time. Whereas there are significant numbers of players playing 5e that are.

This circles around to a slightly different point; what is the "purpose" of a rulebook. If it is simply to impart the rules in a clear and concise way, then it is best served in a certain manner. If, on the other hand, it serves other purposes (including being "fun to read" or "engaging the reader" or "sparking the imagination") then there might be other ways to present the information that is not always served up in the same way that you might do with a board game.

I say this not because I am trying to glorify obtuse rule sets that obfuscate key points, but because I have seen that many people who are new to the game become entranced not due to the rules, but because of the fluff, because of the art, because something within those rulebooks calls them to adventure.

It is an interesting balance; TTRPGs are often games that are spread through direct contact. While there are people that are self-taught, most learn from either playing or observing. Which, IMO, is partly why the rise of the internet and youtube also helps explain the resurgence of the game.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 12, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I say this not because I am trying to glorify obtuse rule sets that obfuscate key points, but because I have seen that many people who are new to the game become entranced not due to the rules, but because of the fluff, because of the art, because something within those rulebooks calls them to adventure.
> 
> It is an interesting balance; TTRPGs are often games that are spread through direct contact. While there are people that are self-taught, most learn from either playing or observing. Which, IMO, is partly why the rise of the internet and youtube also helps explain the resurgence of the game.



It's basic brand marketing. It's not just selling the product itself but also a "story" for the customer through how the product is packaged, sold, and marketed that makes them want to be a part of that product's story.


----------



## TheAlkaizer (Feb 12, 2021)

Haffrung said:


> While I agree that 5E only really has about 20 pages of rules that a player needs to learn in order to play, I disagree that the natural language used to present those rules makes the game more accessible. It's the format and layout of the rules, rather than their scope or complexity, that makes D&D more difficult to learn than it needs to be. Boardgame rules use standard instructional design elements like bulleted lists, numbered lists, white space, sidebars, clear and concise language, etc. to present rules in a much more user-friendly manner than the wall-of-text model employed by WotC and most other RPG publishers.
> 
> If you want to see RPG rulebooks designed by people who understand instructional design, take a look at Old School Essentials or Five Torches Deep. If or when WotC comes out with a 6E, they need someone who understands design and user experience put in charge of formatting the books.



Natural language is not inherently worse than the typical approach with tables, keywords, bullet points, etc. It really depends on the product itself, what type of player it's aimed at, it's complexity, etc. For some people, it's much less intimidating to just read through things naturally. For others, a large paragraph of text makes them sigh even before they've read it.

In the case of 5E, the natural language made it very easy for me to dive in, and I get a nosebleed when I open a more typical boardgame instructions where it describes the phases, tokens, currencies with a cold and precise language. But after I became comfortable with it, the natural language does have its issues where it's not precise and leaves things to ambiguity. Like many things, I think the balance is somewhere in the middle. And that's one thing that videogames are able to do better: having options. You can have tooltips for new players that are much more natural, have less crunch in them and have advanced tooltips that are enabled after a while or in the options.


----------



## Bacon Bits (Feb 12, 2021)

Morrus said:


> View attachment 132586



Yes, that is why the Starter Set exists. But it still doesn't help _that_ much. Like can you be expected to just bust out D&D one evening like it's Cluedo or Monopoly, and just figure it out with friends in an evening? The rules for those games fit on a placemat.

There are a bunch of fairly small problems that are all things that need to be overcome:

It's $30 and, though it does contain dice, you're looking at $180. Yes, you can just get the $30 Starter Kit, but the end goal if things go well is to pay another $150 _at least_.
You still have a 30 page rulebook to ingest. This is still not a small amount of game rules to learn.
You know you're getting a very small subset of the game. Like $30 for just a demo. You have to be because those booklets are so small. The thing is, how do you know you're not just buying a really small part of the game? That is, how do you know if it's a horizontal cross section slice of the game instead of a vertical segment of a much larger game? With some complex board games you often have multiple ways to play them.
You don't know how well written the game is. How many times have you read an RPG and gotten through it and thought, even with your experience, that you have absolutely no idea how you'd actually run the game you've just read? That's one of the common criticisms I've seen about Blades in the Dark, Mage, Wraith, Exalted, and so on.  Or how often have you started an RPG only to find that the book is so horribly organized that it is only useful as a manual of rules and not as a technical reference during actual play? What if you buy the book expecting Savage Worlds and you actually get Phoenix Command? 
But the biggest problem is still there:

_*You still don't know what actually playing the game looks like*_. There's no board. There's no pieces. There's no setup. You sit at a table with a sheet of paper and a pencil. There's monsters and characters and several players and one referee, but there's no actual instructions of how to _play_. Compare it to Magic: The Gathering. You take your deck, shuffle it up, place it to the right or left of the play area, draw 7 cards, etc. There are turns, and a fixed setup, and an order of play. For as complex a game as Magic is, it's still structured like a traditional game. And Magic got a huge boost in popularity with Arena because there was a digital version that knows the rules. There's a tutorial that can walk through. It shows you how to play it and what to expect and when you can do things. D&D didn't have _any_ of that until there were actual plays.

Further, you never know what you're going to get with planned scenarios in a game like the starter set. I remember a friend and I found his dad's copy of the Avalon Hill Starship Troopers war game. We tried playing it, and it took us about an hour to puzzle through the rules, an hour to get one game set up, and about 15 minutes into play to realize that the scenario was so grossly one-sided that it was almost certain victory for one side. The game scenarios had modeled the battles in the book, and it favored that over a balanced confrontation. It was as close to a fixed game as I've seen. We tried a later scenario, and it was the same way with the other side winning. There were no rules that I recall for creating your own scenarios.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 12, 2021)

Bacon Bits said:


> But the biggest problem is still there:
> 
> _*You still don't know what actually playing the game looks like*_. There's no board. There's no pieces. There's no setup. You sit at a table with a sheet of paper and a pencil. There's monsters and characters and several players and one referee, but there's no actual instructions of how to _play_.



I don't know the 5e Starter Set, but this criticism is not true of Moldvay Basic.

Chapter 8 gives step-by-step advice, and a worked example, on how to build a dungeon. The example goes right down to rolling the treasure for a room with some giant crab spiders, and writing it down on the dungeon key. There are step-by-step rules for resolving exploration turns and combat rounds, and examples of both as well.

I don't know what it's like to try and play Prince Valiant from the rulebook with no other experience of RPGing, but I will conjecture that that is possible too. There is an example of play to begin with that illustrates what play is like; the rules for PC gen are step-by-step and straightforward; there is a simple but worked-through example of scenario design.

The rules are longer than Moldvay Basic, but the demarcation of who needs to read which bit for what purpose is pretty clear. What could be stronger (it's not missing, but it could be stronger) is the explanation of when a player can just describe what his/her PC does, and when the GM should call for a check to see if things work out as the player would like them to. One reason Moldvay Basic is able to be particularly strong in this respect is because its field of fictional action is so narrow.


----------



## Bacon Bits (Feb 12, 2021)

pemerton said:


> I don't know the 5e Starter Set, but this criticism is not true of Moldvay Basic.
> 
> Chapter 8 gives step-by-step advice, and a worked example, on how to build a dungeon. The example goes right down to rolling the treasure for a room with some giant crab spiders, and writing it down on the dungeon key. There are step-by-step rules for resolving exploration turns and combat rounds, and examples of both as well.
> 
> ...




Well, I think Moldvay Basic and Basic D&D in general were developed specifically to handle this exact criticism and spend more time telling people about the procedures of actual play and the actual setup. Even with the much shorter books in AD&D, they were seen as clearly being too complex for their target audience. Like, that's why the Red Box was supposed to be in toy stores and the AD&D hardbacks were not. Basic D&D was specifically an attempt to create a minimal number of rules that could still be used with AD&D modules, the monster manual, and so on.

And I disagree that the rules demarcation is clear when you don't know what a DM even is, because I'm talking about the inertia of switching systems before you know anything about the game. And, well, _someone_ has to read the DM stuff. Even setting that aside, it's not like a 320 page rulebook is somehow a _reasonable_ read to play a game. It's not. It's ridiculous. Even the 64 page player's book in Moldvay Basic constitutes and extremely large amount of reading for a single game.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 12, 2021)

Bacon Bits said:


> I disagree that the rules demarcation is clear when you don't know what a DM even is, because I'm talking about the inertia of switching systems before you know anything about the game. And, well, _someone_ has to read the DM stuff. Even setting that aside, it's not like a 320 page rulebook is somehow a _reasonable_ read to play a game. It's not. It's ridiculous. Even the 64 page player's book in Moldvay Basic constitutes and extremely large amount of reading for a single game.



I agree 64 pages is long, but I don't think it's as impractical as the 1,000-ish pages you've (correctly, in my view) identified for the more direct descendants of AD&D.

Moldvay Basic expressly tells the new player to read all the rules. It clearly identifies two participant roles - player and DM - but it doesn't make any assumption about rules demarcation. It's the opposite of AD&D in that respect.

In case you haven't noticed, I'm a big fan of Moldvay Basic as a presentation of D&D! I think it's actually quite odd that, from the point of view of playability, the presentation of the game peaked about 40 years ago.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 12, 2021)

Bacon Bits said:


> Yes, that is why the Starter Set exists. But it still doesn't help _that_ much. Like can you be expected to just bust out D&D one evening like it's Cluedo or Monopoly, and just figure it out with friends in an evening? The rules for those games fit on a placemat.
> 
> There are a bunch of fairly small problems that are all things that need to be overcome:
> 
> ...



I feel like you’re making a mountain out of a molehill. The onboarding isn’t perfect, but it’s not the insurmountable cliff-face that you’re presenting it as. And D&D is doing _really_ well.

People watch CR, buy the starter set, and give it a try. Maybe later they go full in with the hardcovers, or maybe they don’t.


----------



## Bacon Bits (Feb 13, 2021)

Morrus said:


> I feel like you’re making a mountain out of a molehill. The onboarding isn’t perfect, but it’s not the insurmountable cliff-face that you’re presenting it as. And D&D is doing _really_ well.




I am being moderately hyperbolic, yes. 

The point I'm trying to make is that picking up a new system isn't as trivial as a lot of web forum posters like to say it is. These boards in particular are frequented by a lot of people who just read new games and never intend to play them. That's _really_ weird, even within the hobby. Even if you're a designer, it's moderately weird. Some designers I know do that, but just as many if not more are confident in their designs that they don't feel a need to.

While I 100% am frustrated by players who try to shoehorn every genre, style, setting, and tone into D&D -- because that's a horrible idea that almost always ends badly -- I absolutely understand why there is so much inertia about moving to a different game system. Changing a system isn't as trivial for most players as the posters here would have you believe. Lots of RPG players don't think about, let alone care about or enjoy, game systems. That doesn't mean they're not gamers or not roleplayers.



Morrus said:


> People watch CR, buy the starter set, and give it a try. Maybe later they go full in with the hardcovers, or maybe they don’t.




Now, yes. The point was about before actual plays existed. I've spoken to many people over the years who think of roleplaying as something closer to LARPing. And that's not to mention those who only think of it as something you do in the bedroom.

Understanding why actual plays helped so much gives tremendous insight into what kind of inertia people experience about playing the game. Why something like Magic or World of Warcraft or Warhammer tend to get a lot more players and fans, and how onboarding people into almost every other game than an RPG is easier. It seems strange because all you have to buy is books, but that's exactly the problem. Buying a thick book of rules is intimidating. It's almost like buying a textbook.

And switching to a new system brings that same inertia.

So, yes, system matters. I'm never going to run D&D in a modern setting because I don't think guns work well with D&D hit points. I'm going to run Savage Worlds where you could be very highly experienced and still be taken out by just a few good shots. That's going to be way better to the style of game I'm going to run in a modern setting.

But I also sympathize with people who just don't want to learn another game. Another system that has worse production values and is less complete than D&D is, because of course they are. A game system whose rule books are often terribly organize or have major parts of the rules written in nonsensical or contradictory ways. Having to stop in the middle of combat to figure out something that should be a pretty common scenario that the rules somehow just don't address. Finding out halfway through session 6 that your chosen system is unplayable, unworkable, or just not at all fun. Doesn't matter if it just doesn't work at your table or if it's bigger than that. Finding out that what you wanted out of the new system wasn't actually there in the first place is heartbreaking because you often can't do anything about it except throw the whole campaign away. Choosing a brand new system is choosing to allow your campaign to fail because the game rules just don't function.

It's _not_ as easy as posters here want to argue that it is.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 14, 2021)

Bacon Bits said:


> I also sympathize with people who just don't want to learn another game. Another system that has worse production values and is less complete than D&D is, because of course they are. A game system whose rule books are often terribly organize or have major parts of the rules written in nonsensical or contradictory ways. Having to stop in the middle of combat to figure out something that should be a pretty common scenario that the rules somehow just don't address. Finding out halfway through session 6 that your chosen system is unplayable, unworkable, or just not at all fun. Doesn't matter if it just doesn't work at your table or if it's bigger than that. Finding out that what you wanted out of the new system wasn't actually there in the first place is heartbreaking because you often can't do anything about it except throw the whole campaign away. Choosing a brand new system is choosing to allow your campaign to fail because the game rules just don't function.
> 
> It's _not_ as easy as posters here want to argue that it is.



Which systems to you have in mind?

Cthulhu Dark is a 4 page free PDF. There is no cost, the time required to read it is very minimal, and there is nothing I can think of that the rules don't address.

Prince Valiant is one book that is thinner than any D&D hardback since about 1978. (It's a similar size to the AD&D PHB, but is a complete game that also includes a number of sample scenarios.) And the rules are not less complete than D&D.

While I can see where you're coming from vis-a-vis the accessibility to new players of D&D, and of D&D variants like PF, I think your generalisation across all or even most RPGs is not sound.

I think the biggest obstacle to D&D players picking up systems like Cthulhu Dark or Prince Valiant is that these require them to learn new and unfamiliar processes of play.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 14, 2021)

Bacon Bits said:


> he point I'm trying to make is that picking up a new system isn't as trivial as a lot of web forum posters like to say it is. These boards in particular are frequented by a lot of people who just read new games and never intend to play them. That's _really_ weird, even within the hobby.



This is fair.  When I want to run a new game there are some things I need to take into consideration.  

Will this require my players to purchase new books and will they be willing to do so?
Will they take the time to get acquainted with the rules?
Will they take the time to get acquainted with the setting?  
I'd like to run Traveller (Mongoose 2nd edition) COVID is no long something to worry about.  Of my entire group, only one person (not me) has any experience with Traveller and that was over 25 years in the past.  At least they seem receptive to the idea so we'll see how it goes.  I've got an easy going group right now, but switching gears to a new game and system is a chore.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 14, 2021)

MGibster said:


> I'd like to run Traveller (Mongoose 2nd edition) COVID is no long something to worry about.  Of my entire group, only one person (not me) has any experience with Traveller and that was over 25 years in the past.  At least they seem receptive to the idea so we'll see how it goes.  I've got an easy going group right now, but switching gears to a new game and system is a chore.



I only know Classic Traveller, not the Mongoose version. It's pretty easy for players, _provided that_ you as referee know the resolution procedures and subsystems. Players can work out what their PCs are good at just by looking at the skills on their sheets, and they roll the dice when you call for them to based on what they say their PCs are doing.

It's surprisingly close to a PbtA game in that respect, but with even simpler PC sheets.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 14, 2021)

MGibster said:


> This is fair.  When I want to run a new game there are some things I need to take into consideration.



First, I want to say that these are valid questions to take into consideration. 



MGibster said:


> Will this require my players to purchase new books and will they be willing to do so?



Most of the time, IME, this isn't necessary. I think that this again D&D conditioning people that players should/would have a book of their own. Over the past few years, I have run Fate (incl. Jadepunk), Numenera, the Cypher System, AGE (Titansgrave, Blue Rose), D&D 5e, Index Card RPG, and Dungeon World. None of which required that my players buy the book. I even ran and played Pathfinder, and in that case, most of us used d20pfsrd.org or the other online resources. Online resources, in general, are fairly prevalent, particularly among fan communities. 



MGibster said:


> Will they take the time to get acquainted with the rules?



Here, I find that a basic cheat sheet for the rules is all that's typically needed for assisting players get started. I usually print out one sheet per two players. In fact, I wish that more TTRPGs would include a cheat sheet overview of the basic rules, as that sort of aid tremendously helps players (or even the GM) jump into the game quicker. 



MGibster said:


> Will they take the time to get acquainted with the setting?



Again, here is where I go with a one-page write-up of the setting, if such is necessary at all, as this likely would have come up in either Session 0 or in pitching the game to the group. A lot of settings tend to be somewhat light on their toes when it comes to the amount of details necessary to immerse oneself into to play.


----------



## TheSword (Feb 14, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> Most of the time, IME, this isn't necessary. I think that this again D&D conditioning people that players should/would have a book of their own.



How does D&D condition people to have their own book? I play with three tables of 4-6 and all three have two PHB’s between them.


----------



## fearsomepirate (Feb 14, 2021)

Haffrung said:


> While I agree that 5E only really has about 20 pages of rules that a player needs to learn in order to play, I disagree that the natural language used to present those rules makes the game more accessible. It's the format and layout of the rules, rather than their scope or complexity, that makes D&D more difficult to learn than it needs to be. Boardgame rules use standard instructional design elements like bulleted lists, numbered lists, white space, sidebars, clear and concise language, etc. to present rules in a much more user-friendly manner than the wall-of-text model employed by WotC and most other RPG publishers.
> 
> If you want to see RPG rulebooks designed by people who understand instructional design, take a look at Old School Essentials or Five Torches Deep. If or when WotC comes out with a 6E, they need someone who understands design and user experience put in charge of formatting the books.




I've been running 5e since it came out, and I still can't find things in the rulebook when I need to.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 14, 2021)

TheSword said:


> How does D&D condition people to have their own book? I play with three tables of 4-6 and all three have two PHB’s between them.



You play with 14 to 16 people with 2 PHBs total, or with 6?  No use of any other rules sources?  That's highly unique.

D&D conditions players having rulebooks because is a rules medium-heavy game that strongly rewards system mastery.  I'd guess your groups are either very casual or have extensive D&D experience (or both) if they get by this lightly.  Or, you're leaving out other rule resources like DDB.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 14, 2021)

TheSword said:


> Because we generally play games that are made by the people who are telling stories that we like. I find Dungeon World utterly unimpressive in that regard. As would my group.
> 
> Pathfinder 1e, D&D, WFRP have all released great stories. I don’t think it’s coincidence that we’ve played adventures written by each of them in each of the other systems (with the exception of PF adventures in WFRP rules - just because it’s newer). The system wasn’t as important as the stories we were telling.




Can you elaborate what “we play games that are telling stories that we like” means. I’m particularly interested in what that says or doesn’t say about “system matters.” Also, you used the word “tell” rather than “produces” or “stories emerge.” Is there a distinction there that you’re meaning or are the interchangeable?

For instance, if I were to say that (and I wouldn’t phrase it like that), I would probably say something like:

“I’m drawn to games in which the premise is compelling and the design drives rewarding, visceral play where stories emerge around that compelling premise.”

Something like that.

But, given what you’ve written above (the implication that system doesn’t matter much yet you don’t like “Dungeon World’s stories”), it seems to me you mean something different (whether slightly or fundamentally I can’t tell)?


----------



## TheSword (Feb 14, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> You play with 14 to 16 people with 2 PHBs total, or with 6?  No use of any other rules sources?  That's highly unique.
> 
> D&D conditions players having rulebooks because is a rules medium-heavy game that strongly rewards system mastery.  I'd guess your groups are either very casual or have extensive D&D experience (or both) if they get by this lightly.  Or, you're leaving out other rule resources like DDB.



Each table has 2 PHBs. One of which is mine. Unless you’re a spell caster and not using d&d beyond why on earth would you need a PHB for anything other than character creation or leveling up?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 14, 2021)

TheSword said:


> Each table has 2 PHBs. One of which is mine. Unless you’re a spell caster and not using d&d beyond why on earth would you need a PHB for anything other than character creation or leveling up?



"And not using d&d beyond," is a huge hole in your point, though -- it's still needed access to the rules of the game.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 14, 2021)

TheSword said:


> Each table has 2 PHBs. One of which is mine. Unless you’re a spell caster and not using d&d beyond why on earth would you need a PHB for anything other than character creation or leveling up?



Using D&D Beyond may be away around players actually owning the books personally, but it’s not a particularly good argument that D&D doesn‘t encourage owning the rule books.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 14, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> Most of the time, IME, this isn't necessary. I think that this again D&D conditioning people that players should/would have a book of their own. Over the past few years, I have run Fate (incl. Jadepunk), Numenera, the Cypher System, AGE (Titansgrave, Blue Rose), D&D 5e, Index Card RPG, and Dungeon World. None of which required that my players buy the book. I even ran and played Pathfinder, and in that case, most of us used d20pfsrd.org or the other online resources. Online resources, in general, are fairly prevalent, particularly among fan communities.



This is one of those your miles may vary situations.  I find it a lot easier to just purchase the main book so I have easy access to the rules and at least the basic setting information I need to make my participation a satisfactory experience.  For me and most of my players, the $60 price tag for a new game isn't much of a barrier.  I'm more concerned about having another book sitting on my shelf sitting unloved and unused than I am about money.  For me, there's definitely been a correlation between campaigns I didn't particular care for and books I didn't purchase.  I have two in the last 15 years I'm thinking of in particular and I can't recall their name and it's driving me nuts!


Aldarc said:


> Here, I find that a basic cheat sheet for the rules is all that's typically needed for assisting players get started. I usually print out one sheet per two players. In fact, I wish that more TTRPGs would include a cheat sheet overview of the basic rules, as that sort of aid tremendously helps players (or even the GM) jump into the game quicker.



In my particular group, we've been using Savage Worlds off an on for more than five years now.  I still have a player who asks me if he needs to roll a Wild Die when making a Vigor check.  Cheat sheets are helpful and we've certainly used them in the past, when I run and when I'm a player, but I still run into this problem with my group.  


Aldarc said:


> Again, here is where I go with a one-page write-up of the setting, if such is necessary at all, as this likely would have come up in either Session 0 or in pitching the game to the group. A lot of settings tend to be somewhat light on their toes when it comes to the amount of details necessary to immerse oneself into to play.



The plethora of online resources has really been a godsend when it comes to introducing new players to a setting.  When I ran Vampire 5th edition, only one player was familiar with the setting and I was able to recommend several lore videos on Youtube for them to get an idea of what it was all about.  Youtube and fan Wikis are very, very useful resources for players and dungeon masters and they're both cheap.  But, again, with my group, some of them just aren't going to read any of the material no matter how accessible I make it.  My one page write ups for campaign settings usually consist of two paragraphs rather than a whole page.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 14, 2021)

billd91 said:


> Using D&D Beyond may be away around players actually owning the books personally, but it’s not a particularly good argument that D&D doesn‘t encourage owning the rule books.



Do you still have to buy them on DDB? I haven't used the platform myself, so I'm not familiar. If so, they still own the rulebooks, just in a different format.


----------



## BronzeDragon (Feb 14, 2021)

Morrus said:


> Different systems just _feel_ different. You can use any system to play any genre, sure, but sometimes you're just putting it in a costume. A specifically tailored system can make the game feel completely different, even with the exact same players and GM.



Very much this.

Running Star Wars D6 just felt very much like being in the movies.

When I tried running SW D20, I quickly found out it was a pretty good Sci-fi system, but was extremely poor at doing Star Wars. It felt clunky in all the places it should've felt fluid (in order to recreate the atmosphere of the source material).

That's just one example, many others can be recalled with barely any effort (WFRP 1E/2E vs 3E, Runequest d100 vs 13th Age, etc...). Sometimes the change in feeling is intentional, such as the many alternative ways of running Lovecraftian stuff, but these can be beneficial or interesting if that change of pace is what you are looking for. If, however, you are just expecting the different system to simply be a mechanical alternative and are then hit by a completely different rythm of play, you will likely view the experience as negative.

GURPS is notorious in how different it can feel when running different sets. Fantasy can be clunky if the DM isn't on point, Supers is barely functional as written, but modern adventures feel incredibly _right_ when run with GURPS.


----------



## Strider1973 (Feb 14, 2021)

Yes, system matters, according to me. Playing a Fantasy Adventure or Campaign with Rolemaster is very different than playing them with D&D 5e: the approach to the game and to the adventure itself is very different from one game to the other. Even when playing within the same setting, system matters: playing in Middle Earth is very different if you use Merp instead of The One Ring, or Adventures in Middle Earth, or even The Lord of The Rings Roleplaying Game by Decipher. Even generic and universal rpgs can differ wildly and offer very different gaming experiences, depending on the system a group chooses: Gurps plays very differently from, let's say, Fate, or Cypher, or Savage Worlds.

I go a little further: in my opinion groups of players choose the game they want to play even considering the features of the system they want to use. Two groups of players may want to play Heroic Fantasy, but one of them may choose to play Pathfinder, 1e or 2e, because its players love endless possibilities of rules-wise character customization, tons of options and a crunchy and very detailed ruleset, while the other group may choose Dungeons & Dragons 5e because its players want maybe a simpler, faster, less crunchy system. 

System matters, otherwise there wouldn't have been the OSR movement (besides and beyond the philosophical differences and approaches to gaming, between old school and new school games and players), or there wouldn't have been Pathfinder in the D&D 4th edition days, or, more recently, there wouldnt' even have been the Pathfinder adaptation to Savage Worlds. 

In my opinion if played with the RAW approach, systems matter because they set the tone and the expectations, so to speak, according to which you play the chosen game and the adventures: if you play Middle Earth using Merp, particularly at lower levels, you'd better watch out and be wary and cautious even facing a single orc or goblin; if you play Middle Earth using The Lord of the Rings Rpg by Decipher, even playing a character with few Advancements, you can expect to slay single handedly more than one orc, and not just because the latter game may have been poorly playtested, but because the two games see characters and heroes in two very different ways. In Merp characters are slighlty better than normal people, particularly at the beginning, in a vast, threatening world, while in the Decipher Lord of the Rings RPG Characters are meant to mirror as soon as possible the Fellowship of the Ring Heroes' deeds.


----------



## prabe (Feb 14, 2021)

Morrus said:


> Do you still have to buy them on DDB? I haven't used the platform myself, so I'm not familiar. If so, they still own the rulebooks, just in a different format.



If the DM has the right sort of subscription, they can arrange for players in their campaign/s to have access to the books the DM has unlocked on D&D Beyond.

For example, players in the campaigns I've set up on D&D Beyond have access to the content I've unlocked on D&D Beyond. I think that if one of the players has unlocked a book I haven't, then it's shared in the campaign/s that player is in.

Hope that's clear. Ish.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 14, 2021)

prabe said:


> If the DM has the right sort of subscription, they can arrange for players in their campaign/s to have access to the books the DM has unlocked on D&D Beyond.
> 
> For example, players in the campaigns I've set up on D&D Beyond have access to the content I've unlocked on D&D Beyond. I think that if one of the players has unlocked a book I haven't, then it's shared in the campaign/s that player is in.
> 
> Hope that's clear. Ish.



So it's basically one player at the table buys the book and then everybody can look at it? Sounds pretty similar to the physical dynamic.


----------



## prabe (Feb 14, 2021)

Morrus said:


> So it's basically one player at the table buys the book and then everybody can look at it? Sounds pretty similar to the physical dynamic.



Pretty much. If you're DMing multiple campaigns, it's a relatively cost-effective way for people to see the rules.

My wife and I ended up doing it, because she's going to be out of town for a couple of months or so, and D&D Beyond is cheaper than buying second copies of books (and easier for her to pack).


----------



## TheSword (Feb 14, 2021)

duplicate


----------



## TheSword (Feb 14, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> "And not using d&d beyond," is a huge hole in your point, though -- it's still needed access to the rules of the game.



My players don’t use d&d beyond. They use the PHB. Though I do use it, but that’s besides the point as I have a PHB. Either way, the base spells are free on there. 

I always thought a couple of copies of PHB around a table when you play in someone’s home is normal. Why do you need 5 copies of the same book?

Or are we assuming that everyone is who plays is as obsessed about rules as us few who post here?

The Basic rules are free as are basic classes. Don’t really see the big deal.

Though we’ve been over the barrier to entry cost over again. It’s been demonstrated it’s a mediocre cost of entry and much less than pretty much any other hobby I can think of.


----------



## prabe (Feb 15, 2021)

TheSword said:


> I always thought a couple of copies of PHB around a table when you play in someone’s home is normal. Why do you need 5 copies of the same book?
> 
> Or are we assuming that everyone is who plays is as obsessed about rules as us few who post here?



I think people are expecting the players around the table to want copies of the rules for when they aren't at the table.

I will say that (I think) all the players at both tables I'm DMing for have their own copies of at least the PHB--except that my wife and I share.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 15, 2021)

TheSword said:


> I always thought a couple of copies of PHB around a table when you play in someone’s home is normal. Why do you need 5 copies of the same book?
> 
> Or are we assuming that everyone is who plays is as obsessed about rules as us few who post here?



If you're playing a character with spells you might want to keep the PHB handy for references.  And it's not uncommon to see a group made up of a significant portion of caster heavy character types.  I typically write down the page number I can find my spell for quick reference if needed.  I suppose I could purchase spell cards or write down entire spell descriptions but I have neither the inclination to spend money or the desire to spend my time writing that much.  Counting me, I typically have 7 players for my D&D games and we have four PHBs floating around.


----------



## TheSword (Feb 15, 2021)

MGibster said:


> If you're playing a character with spells you might want to keep the PHB handy for references.  And it's not uncommon to see a group made up of a significant portion of caster heavy character types.  I typically write down the page number I can find my spell for quick reference if needed.  I suppose I could purchase spell cards or write down entire spell descriptions but I have neither the inclination to spend money or the desire to spend my time writing that much.  Counting me, I typically have 7 players for my D&D games and we have four PHBs floating around.



I agree totally, which is why I said unless you’re a caster. Though of course you can get core spells on D&D beyond and expanded spells for a few dollars. Much more convenient for carrying round than a hardback book.

Four copies between 7 isn’t a million miles from what I said, two between 4 or 5.


----------



## TheSword (Feb 15, 2021)

prabe said:


> I think people are expecting the players around the table to want copies of the rules for when they aren't at the table.
> 
> I will say that (I think) all the players at both tables I'm DMing for have their own copies of at least the PHB--except that my wife and I share.



I think you’re dramatically overestimating the amount of time the new wave of players approach the game. My observations with a 18 month old group born out of board gaming is that they don’t paw through the book searching for rules between sessions. They turn up expecting to do character design and level up at the table as part of the game. They may check out a forum like this for ideas, or read a guide, but they don’t spend a huge amount of time planning.

While I appreciate this is anecdotal, I believe I saw that a lot of new players are also families playing with children. A generation of older players passing it on to the next generation. I don’t believe in these cases it would be typical for everyone in the family to have their own book.

In short. While it might be desirable to have your own copy of PHB it certainly isn’t necessary in situations where You’re playing with friends and family (rather than at a club/store/con). I definitely don’t see more than one copy of Xanathars or Tasha’s at the table. That’s my copy.

I really don’t see any evidence of the accusation that D&D conditions players to have their own copies of books.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 15, 2021)

MGibster said:


> This is one of those your miles may vary situations.  I find it a lot easier to just purchase the main book so I have easy access to the rules and at least the basic setting information I need to make my participation a satisfactory experience.  For me and most of my players, the $60 price tag for a new game isn't much of a barrier.  I'm more concerned about having another book sitting on my shelf sitting unloved and unused than I am about money.  For me, there's definitely been a correlation between campaigns I didn't particular care for and books I didn't purchase.  I have two in the last 15 years I'm thinking of in particular and I can't recall their name and it's driving me nuts!



But "will this book sit on my shelf unloved?" is a different question from your original one about whether players would likewise buy a copy. 



MGibster said:


> In my particular group, we've been using Savage Worlds off an on for more than five years now.  I still have a player who asks me if he needs to roll a Wild Die when making a Vigor check.  Cheat sheets are helpful and we've certainly used them in the past, when I run and when I'm a player, but I still run into this problem with my group.



I'm not sure if reading the rules would actually help players like this one.  



MGibster said:


> The plethora of online resources has really been a godsend when it comes to introducing new players to a setting.  When I ran Vampire 5th edition, only one player was familiar with the setting and I was able to recommend several lore videos on Youtube for them to get an idea of what it was all about.  Youtube and fan Wikis are very, very useful resources for players and dungeon masters and they're both cheap.  *But, again, with my group, some of them just aren't going to read any of the material no matter how accessible I make it. * My one page write ups for campaign settings usually consist of two paragraphs rather than a whole page.



Then why even bother asking if the players would read the setting materials as a pertinent question to take under consideration?


----------



## Haffrung (Feb 15, 2021)

fearsomepirate said:


> I've been running 5e since it came out, and I still can't find things in the rulebook when I need to.



Same here. Basic stuff like how many spells a wizard has in their spellbook at level 1 is buried in paragraphs of text. It's ridiculous. And no, putting that in a wall of text does not spark the imagination or make the learning the game more immersive.


----------



## Haffrung (Feb 15, 2021)

TheSword said:


> I think you’re dramatically overestimating the amount of time the new wave of players approach the game. My observations with a 18 month old group born out of board gaming is that they don’t paw through the book searching for rules between sessions. They turn up expecting to do character design and level up at the table as part of the game. They may check out a forum like this for ideas, or read a guide, but they don’t spend a huge amount of time planning.
> 
> While I appreciate this is anecdotal, I believe I saw that a lot of new players are also families playing with children. A generation of older players passing it on to the next generation. I don’t believe in these cases it would be typical for everyone in the family to have their own book.
> 
> ...



This matches my experience. In our group at the office made up almost entirely of newbs, two people out of six bought a PHB. Other than those two, nobody has cracked a book or given any thought to D&D outside the time we were playing. Everybody bought their own dice, though, because funky dice are fun and people like to buy stuff for their hobbies.
Heck, I have a couple guys in the group I've been playing with for 30 years who have never cracked a D&D book away from the table. For most participants, D&D is a far more casual hobby than one would be think from reading these forums.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 15, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> But "will this book sit on my shelf unloved?" is a different question from your original one about whether players would likewise buy a copy.



It's related to the original question though in that it's one of the many points of data that's taken into account when deciding whether or not to purchase a book.  Even though I've already said price isn't much of a barrier it's still a factor.  I avoided purchasing the Conan RPG for a while because I wasn't sure my players would be interested.  But when it went on sale at my FLGS and I decided to take a chance because the price was too good.  We would have had a go of it in 2020 had it not been for the pandemic.  



Aldarc said:


> I'm not sure if reading the rules would actually help players like this one.



That's not an unfair statement.  


Aldarc said:


> Then why even bother asking if the players would read the setting materials as a pertinent question to take under consideration?



I typically have six players in my regular group and they're not all exactly alike.  When I ran my Vampire game, two of the players eagerly ate up all the lore videos I sent, one of them read enough to get by, the other was already familiar with the setting, and two of my regulars opted out of the campaign because they just didn't care for the material.  Sometimes what grabs one player doesn't grab another.  And I'm the same way and I can remember the name of one of those games I just couldn't get into:  Exalted!  Oh, man!  I played the game because most of the group wanted to but I never had any idea what was going on, the rules were confusing, and I was so happy when that campaign was over.


----------



## fearsomepirate (Feb 15, 2021)

Haffrung said:


> This matches my experience. In our group at the office made up almost entirely of newbs, two people out of six bought a PHB. Other than those two, nobody has cracked a book or given any thought to D&D outside the time we were playing. Everybody bought their own dice, though, because funky dice are fun and people like to buy stuff for their hobbies.
> Heck, I have a couple guys in the group I've been playing with for 30 years who have never cracked a D&D book away from the table. For most participants, D&D is a far more casual hobby than one would be think from reading these forums.



As much as people slammed 4e's layout for being boring, it was, for the most part, very effective as an in-game reference manual.


----------



## Bacon Bits (Feb 15, 2021)

pemerton said:


> Which systems to you have in mind?
> 
> Cthulhu Dark is a 4 page free PDF. There is no cost, the time required to read it is very minimal, and there is nothing I can think of that the rules don't address.
> 
> Prince Valiant is one book that is thinner than any D&D hardback since about 1978. (It's a similar size to the AD&D PHB, but is a complete game that also includes a number of sample scenarios.) And the rules are not less complete than D&D.




I'm talking about the systems people actually seem to be playing. The ones showing up on icv2 and roll20 lists and that my FLGS was telling me sold well (when they were open). D&D, Pathfinder, Call of Cthulu, Savage Worlds, Starfinder, Warhammer, One Ring, Cyberpunk Red, Stars Without Number, Blades in the Dark, etc. All these games have big, beefy rulebooks.

Even Dungeon World, a famously rules-light game, has a rulebook that is several hundred pages. Yes, it's in a format that lends itself to a longer book with a ton of whitespace and larger print, but even if you condensed it down it'd still be a couple hundred pages. Mouse Guard, another game I think most people would consider rules-light, has a core rulebook with 320 pages, too.

The existence of MicroLite20 doesn't mean that switching systems is easy. Just like the existence of Fiasco doesn't mean you should expect to play any TTRPG game with zero preparation. People still seem to mostly be interested in RPG games with significant heft to them to simulate a real world. Just like we see boardgames on kickstarter including dozens of bits and bobs and tokens and cards, RPG books generally show up with a hefty hardcover. That's the kind of bespoke RPG product people are willing to fund, regardless of whether or not that's what they end up playing. The same people who funded TSR's products in the mid to late 90s are the same ones funding kickstarters. On the flip side, established RPGs are also already this type of game, too.

People aren't playing Cthulu Dark. It's a game with exactly _one_ mechanic. That's barely enough to be a one-shot. They're playing Call of Cthulu, which is a couple hundred pages. We know that because that's what's been in the top 5 of the sales charts and in the top 5 of the roll20 campaigns for the past couple of years. Unless they were in the KS, people aren't playing Prince Valiant, either. You can't get that anymore, including the 2018 edition; it's not on DriveThruRPG or Chaosium's site. They're playing Pendragon because that's what Chaosium is still selling, which clocks in at at 220 pages.



pemerton said:


> I think the biggest obstacle to D&D players picking up systems like Cthulhu Dark or Prince Valiant is that these require them to learn new and unfamiliar processes of play.




Yes, obviously. And where do we learn these new and unfamiliar processes of play? _By reading the often quite thick rulebooks._


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 15, 2021)

Bacon Bits said:


> I'm talking about the systems people actually seem to be playing. The ones showing up on icv2 and roll20 lists and that my FLGS was telling me sold well (when they were open). D&D, Pathfinder, Call of Cthulu, Savage Worlds, Starfinder, Warhammer, One Ring, Cyberpunk Red, Stars Without Number, Blades in the Dark, etc. All these games have big, beefy rulebooks.
> 
> Even Dungeon World, a famously rules-light game, has a rulebook that is several hundred pages. Yes, it's in a format that lends itself to a longer book with a ton of whitespace and larger print, but even if you condensed it down it'd still be a couple hundred pages. Mouse Guard, another game I think most people would consider rules-light, has a core rulebook with 320 pages, too.



It's worth noting, that while these some of these systems may have "big, beefy rulebooks," they aren't typically sold individually as PHB, DMG, and/or MM, but simply as the singular core rulebook. So a lot of the information therein is not always meant for the non-GM players. For some of these books, it has everything you need for running the game. 

The PC-pertinent material in Blades in the Dark is within the first 1-186 pages. In comparison, 186 pages doesn't event touch the Combat chapter in the 5e PHB. 

When you cut out the GM materials, Dungeon World is 157 pages, but the idea that a new player would need to read those 157 pages doesn't really equate to my actual experience running it. IME, games like Dungeon World, Blades in the Dark, or other PbtA-type games often simply involves the GM presenting the players with playbooks pre-printed. A basic rundown of the game happens (e.g., "describe what you want to do, it may trigger a move, and then roll 2d6: if 1-6, then X; if 7-9, then Y; if 10+, then Z...") and then play resumes pretty quickly. A big benefit with PbtA, FitD, and Fate games is that they tend to be exceptionally fiction-first games, which helps new players jump into the games quite readily. 



Bacon Bits said:


> Yes, obviously. And where do we learn these new and unfamiliar processes of play? _By reading the often quite thick rulebooks._



IME, generally for players it's by playing in a game with someone who has done so already.


----------



## Bacon Bits (Feb 15, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> It's worth noting, that while these some of these systems may have "big, beefy rulebooks," they aren't typically sold individually as PHB, DMG, and/or MM, but simply as the singular core rulebook. So a lot of the information therein is not always meant for the non-GM players. For some of these books, it has everything you need for running the game.
> 
> The PC-pertinent material in Blades in the Dark is within the first 1-186 pages. In comparison, 186 pages doesn't event touch the Combat chapter in the 5e PHB.
> 
> ...




That's exactly the point, though. I'm pointing out that new systems are difficult to move to when _nobody_ in the group is familiar with them. When all anybody has is the back-of-the-box description.

You don't know until you get the book how much you need to read. You often won't know until you play what parts are actually important. You can't say "Dungeon World is really only 50 pages because that's all you really need" because that's based on knowledge you only have _after_ you've read it and _after_ you've played. _Someone_ had to read the other 350 pages to know that they're not always useful or not necessary. And, yes, while not every player needs to read the sections outlined as the GM section, _at least one person does_ and it often is a tremendous help if more than one person does.

The whole point is that even if you know that a lion's share of the book isn't going to be useful in every session or even every campaign, someone still has to go through the task of figuring out what to keep and what to discard. Someone has to read everything _first_. The _first_ step in running a new system you have no familiarity with is reading _everything_ written as the rulebook at least to the point of understanding the purpose and goal of each section of the rulebook so you can reference it during play. Like you don't want to get 5 sessions in to One Ring and discover the rules for Sauron's influence, or 5 sessions in to Call of Cthulu and discovering the rules for sanity, or 5 sessions in to D&D and discovering the rules for skill checks. Each game has a set of minimal systems built in to it to function as a game, and somebody has to figure that out before the table can play.

Otherwise you're just filling in a character sheet with numbers you'll never use because nobody knows when they come up.


----------



## prabe (Feb 15, 2021)

TheSword said:


> I think you’re dramatically overestimating the amount of time the new wave of players approach the game. My observations with a 18 month old group born out of board gaming is that they don’t paw through the book searching for rules between sessions. They turn up expecting to do character design and level up at the table as part of the game. They may check out a forum like this for ideas, or read a guide, but they don’t spend a huge amount of time planning.
> 
> While I appreciate this is anecdotal, I believe I saw that a lot of new players are also families playing with children. A generation of older players passing it on to the next generation. I don’t believe in these cases it would be typical for everyone in the family to have their own book.
> 
> ...



Eh. One of my table has two players new to the game. They both have their own copies of the PHB, and they both have done some thinking about their characters away from the table. I'll admit, my tables started at stores (and will, inshallah, be in stores again, someday), which is a condition you admit is different. Also, the more veteran players at both tables do put a fair amount of away-from-the-table thought into their characters, which does go some way toward setting a tone/expectation.

FWIW, I was attempting to explain others' thinking, not argue with you. It is possible to play TRPGs you don't own the book/s for; I've done it.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 15, 2021)

Bacon Bits said:


> Yes, obviously. And where do we learn these new and unfamiliar processes of play? _By reading the often quite thick rulebooks._



I'm not sure I agree with this, especially with the number of people that fail to grasp how a number of games function when reading them.  Usually this is due to bringing prior experience forward, and expecting the new game to operate largely as a previously learned game does.  This is fine when moving among the game systems that are similar to D&D -- ones that feature GM as the primary, if not sole, author of world fiction and adjudication of said world.  The number of people that have trouble moving from a D&D-like experience in games to something like the PbtA games is markedly high -- because they're not actually reading the rulebooks to learn to play but assuming they know how to RPG and this is just a new way.  Hence the large amount of confusion on how certain mechanics can possibly work.

I'm speaking from experience, here -- my first attempt to move away from the D&D sphere into Burning Wheel was a complete disaster of failure to understand how the game even worked, despite the rulebook being pretty clear on how it does work.  I kept trying to fit that into my then understanding of how RPGs worked, and it didn't fit.  I can mostly learn a new game from a rulebook now, though, because I make sure to leave everything else at the front cover.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 15, 2021)

Bacon Bits said:


> That's exactly the point, though. I'm pointing out that new systems are difficult to move to when _nobody_ in the group is familiar with them. When all anybody has is the back-of-the-box description.
> 
> You don't know until you get the book how much you need to read.



...the Table of Contents, which I can read for free on DriveThruRPG or flip through in a hobby store.


----------



## TheSword (Feb 15, 2021)

prabe said:


> Eh. One of my table has two players new to the game. They both have their own copies of the PHB, and they both have done some thinking about their characters away from the table. I'll admit, my tables started at stores (and will, inshallah, be in stores again, someday), which is a condition you admit is different. Also, the more veteran players at both tables do put a fair amount of away-from-the-table thought into their characters, which does go some way toward setting a tone/expectation.
> 
> FWIW, I was attempting to explain others' thinking, not argue with you. It is possible to play TRPGs you don't own the book/s for; I've done it.



Do they know you well. The only reason I say, is that if I was joining a group I didn’t know well, then I would probably prepare more than a group of mates I was already really comfortable with.


----------



## Bacon Bits (Feb 15, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> I'm not sure I agree with this, especially with the number of people that fail to grasp how a number of games function when reading them.  Usually this is due to bringing prior experience forward, and expecting the new game to operate largely as a previously learned game does.  This is fine when moving among the game systems that are similar to D&D -- ones that feature GM as the primary, if not sole, author of world fiction and adjudication of said world.  The number of people that have trouble moving from a D&D-like experience in games to something like the PbtA games is markedly high -- because they're not actually reading the rulebooks to learn to play but assuming they know how to RPG and this is just a new way.  Hence the large amount of confusion on how certain mechanics can possibly work.
> 
> I'm speaking from experience, here -- my first attempt to move away from the D&D sphere into Burning Wheel was a complete disaster of failure to understand how the game even worked, despite the rulebook being pretty clear on how it does work.  I kept trying to fit that into my then understanding of how RPGs worked, and it didn't fit.  I can mostly learn a new game from a rulebook now, though, because I make sure to leave everything else at the front cover.




You're certainly not wrong, and I've experienced similar misunderstandings before, too. I remember struggling with the phases of play in One Ring. But I also think it's at least a little beside the point. In the absence of an actual play, often the only way to learn a new system is from the book. Or if not the book, from a quick start kit of some kind... written by the same people who wrote the book. Either way, your ability to grok the new system is reliant on a designer-author's ability to convey the means and the ways to play the game.

Yes, you might misread the whole system -- it doesn't need to be a new system to do that -- and a new player needs to be willing and able to absorb the differences in the system that might run very contrary to their stablished play norms. However, it's still that book that stands as the primary window into the mind of the designer. If the book doesn't convey the new systems or play processes or doesn't do so particularly well due to organization, the new systems might as well not exist.

In other words, a well written book is _necessary but not sufficient_ for adopting a new system.



Aldarc said:


> ...the Table of Contents, which I can read for free on DriveThruRPG or flip through in a hobby store.




My post did elaborate further. It explained why a cursory glance doesn't actually give you a complete impression of what you might need to know to run a system. It's kind of ironic because you skipped the meat of my argument in a post about how new players to a system need to read the whole system at least once so that they don't mistakenly skip the meat of the system.


----------



## prabe (Feb 15, 2021)

TheSword said:


> Do they know you well. The only reason I say, is that if I was joining a group I didn’t know well, then I would probably prepare more than a group of mates I was already really comfortable with.



The new-to-the-game players? They didn't--part of why I wanted to run at a game store was to have an opportunity to game with (at least some) different people. There are a few other players at the tables who've known me for a while, one of whom is married to me.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 15, 2021)

Bacon Bits said:


> My post did elaborate further. It explained why a cursory glance doesn't actually give you a complete impression of what you might need to know to run a system. It's kind of ironic because *you skipped the meat of my argument* in a post about how new players to a system need to read the whole system at least once so that they don't mistakenly skip the meat of the system.



You presume a little too much here.


----------



## TheSword (Feb 16, 2021)

prabe said:


> The new-to-the-game players? They didn't--part of why I wanted to run at a game store was to have an opportunity to game with (at least some) different people. There are a few other players at the tables who've known me for a while, one of whom is married to me.



It’s fair to assume I think, that if I’m playing with strangers, particularly a new group I’m joining. Then I’m gonna turn with a book, character sheet, prepped character, and having done a ton of research to not look like an idiot.

If I’m playing at my mates house instead of Lords of Waterdeep then I don’t care if I look an idiot.


----------



## prabe (Feb 16, 2021)

TheSword said:


> It’s fair to assume I think, that if I’m playing with strangers, particularly a new group I’m joining. Then I’m gonna turn with a book, character sheet, prepped character, and having done a ton of research to not look like an idiot.
> 
> If I’m playing at my mates house instead of Lords of Waterdeep then I don’t care if I look an idiot.



That possibly depends on the expectations among your group/s of friends. The people I game with as friends, I wouldn't want to show up half-assed.

Also, the two newest players have started DMing their own campaigns, so they plausibly aren't typical new players, either.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 16, 2021)

Bacon Bits said:


> You're certainly not wrong, and I've experienced similar misunderstandings before, too. I remember struggling with the phases of play in One Ring. But I also think it's at least a little beside the point. In the absence of an actual play, often the only way to learn a new system is from the book. Or if not the book, from a quick start kit of some kind... written by the same people who wrote the book. Either way, your ability to grok the new system is reliant on a designer-author's ability to convey the means and the ways to play the game.
> 
> Yes, you might misread the whole system -- it doesn't need to be a new system to do that -- and a new player needs to be willing and able to absorb the differences in the system that might run very contrary to their stablished play norms. However, it's still that book that stands as the primary window into the mind of the designer. If the book doesn't convey the new systems or play processes or doesn't do so particularly well due to organization, the new systems might as well not exist.
> 
> In other words, a well written book is _necessary but not sufficient_ for adopting a new system.



I don't agree with this either.  For starters, there's lots of resources out there now to help learn games, from forums like this or ones dedicated to the game in question.  There's Let's Play videos, or videos from the designers.

And, finally, you can absolutely learn a game from a rulebook -- what I was pointing out above is that there are issues with this that come from the assumption set of the reader, but I've learned a game or two from nothing but the book.  

I guess I'm not agreeing with the extremes, here.  I'll agree that it's much easier, and success likelier, to learn a game with help, but I can't agree that it's not possible otherwise.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 16, 2021)

Bacon Bits said:


> People aren't playing Cthulu Dark. It's a game with exactly _one_ mechanic. That's barely enough to be a one-shot. They're playing Call of Cthulu, which is a couple hundred pages. We know that because that's what's been in the top 5 of the sales charts and in the top 5 of the roll20 campaigns for the past couple of years. Unless they were in the KS, people aren't playing Prince Valiant, either. You can't get that anymore, including the 2018 edition; it's not on DriveThruRPG or Chaosium's site. They're playing Pendragon because that's what Chaosium is still selling, which clocks in at at 220 pages.



I think these points are highly relevant to the idea that _system matters_.

I will assert, unequivocally, that Cthulhu Dark is a better RPG system both _in general_, and _for the special case of Mythos RPGing_, than CoC. Yet as you note the latter is far more widely played.

I will also assert, but a bit more hesitantly as I know I'm disagreeing with Greg Stafford, that Prince Valiant is a better system both _in general_, and _for the special case of Arthurian/knightly romance RPGing_, than Pendragon. (And to the extent that someone wants to use the Winter Phase stuff from Pendragon that can easily be folded back into Prince Valiant. We've used those charts to determine whether the knights in our Prince Valiant game have children following their marriages.)

Part of the virtue of both systems is that they're shorter and mechanically more straightforward. They also more reliably produce experiences, in play, that emulate the source material.

So why are they not more widely played?



Bacon Bits said:


> People still seem to mostly be interested in RPG games with significant heft to them to simulate a real world.



This is one possible answer. To the extent that it is true, it shows that system matters _a lot_.

(There are also marketing/commercial dynamics that help feed into system choice, which probably also play some explanatory role here.)


----------



## pemerton (Feb 16, 2021)

On the issue of _how to learn new processes of play_:

* By reading and doing what you're told to do;

* By watching other people doing it (either hanging out with them, or watching recordings etc);

* By intuiting it.

The first requires complete and well-thought-through instructions. I think Burning Wheel comes pretty close, but would benefit from more examples. The Adventure Burner (or Codex for Gold edition) provides this but that does then turn it into a pretty lengthy rulebook.

A nice example of this for a mechanically less intricate game is In A Wicked Age. It's account of the set-up process even tells you that if you finish your set-up before everyone else at the table, maybe you can pour the drinks!

But a problem for the players of both BW and IaWA is that the rulebooks tell you, at certain points, that in response to certain prior "moves" made in the course of play _you have to make some stuff up_. I think this can be a challenge for a lot of people. One strength of those chunky systems with those long rulebooks is that they need less of this - eg a whole combat can often be resolved in D&D play without anyone having to make up any fiction; detailed rules for travel mean that the fiction can be read of the rules without anyone needing to make stuff up; etc.

Rulebooks can help with the need to make stuff up by providing examples, but ultimately it's a skill that needs to be practised. This is probably a place where seeing others do it can help, just because a picture is worth a thousand words.

I think relying on intuition can be a problem, for the reasons that @Ovinomancer has described - "intuition" often reflects _prior experience and baggage_. Or the lack thereof.

For instance, the original three black books for Classic Traveller have a lot of amazing content in them, and - in my view - a remarkably well-designed game when one considers it was written in 1977. But while it talks about how to build PCs, and how to build words and lay out starmaps, and has encounter tables, and even makes reference to "the adventure" or "the situation" that the referee is administering, at no point does it actually describe the process of collectively establishing a shared fiction, the players making "moves" for their PCs within that fictional space, the referee responding, etc. Which I think makes it almost impossible to pick up and play without some prior sense of what a RPG or wargame plays like; and that prior sense will then inform the use of the Traveller rules. (As it happens I think they work best for a PbtA-type approach, but that probably wasn't quite what the designer had in mind in 1977.)

Moldvay Basic remains a touchstone, in my view, for a book that does set out the procedures of play very clearly, but it won't support the sort of fiction/narrative-oriented RPGing that BW and IaWA aspire to. It succeeds by radically narrowing the scope of the fiction it is concerned with, and then setting out very concrete procedures for establishing the consequences, in the fiction, of the players "moves" - it relies heavily on GM judgement in adjudication, but doesn't require very much _making stuff up_.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Feb 16, 2021)

TheSword said:


> Pathfinder 1e, D&D, WFRP have all released great stories. I don’t think it’s coincidence that we’ve played adventures written by each of them in each of the other systems (with the exception of PF adventures in WFRP rules - just because it’s newer). The system wasn’t as important as the stories we were telling.



The thing is that D&D started life as a hacked tabletop wargame with the GM there to enable you to step outside the wargame rules. Pathfinder is a direct D&D offshoot. And WFRP is a hacked tabletop wargame even if it uses a different wargame and a slightly grittier aesthetic. The design goals of all three are very similar - and the methodologies are similar enough that in one notorious review Ryan Dancey claimed that WFRP 2e had clearly been taking notes from D&D 3.X with examples that had all been in WFRP 1e almost two decades earlier.

Those are three very similar systems with similar design assumptions you have there. I'm not surprised adventures for one work in the others.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 16, 2021)

Neonchameleon said:


> The thing is that D&D started life as a hacked tabletop wargame with the GM there to enable you to step outside the wargame rules. Pathfinder is a direct D&D offshoot. And WFRP is a hacked tabletop wargame even if it uses a different wargame and a slightly grittier aesthetic. The design goals of all three are very similar - and the methodologies are similar enough that in *one notorious review Ryan Dancey claimed that WFRP 2e had clearly been taking notes from D&D 3.X with examples that had all been in WFRP 1e almost two decades earlier.*
> 
> Those are three very similar systems with similar design assumptions you have there. I'm not surprised adventures for one work in the others.



Excerpts... 



> The Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay game is a clever derivative of D&D 3rd Edition with an innovative character advancement system, ...
> 
> Chris is credited with Design & Writing for the Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay game, and his influence on the system will extend to all the other products in the line, which makes the decisions made in creating the basic rulebook the template for all of the Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay products. His background experience at Wizards of the Coast and as a D20 publisher is therefore exceptionally relevant to the following observations. Chris understands many of the research efforts that were performed prior to writing D&D 3e, and he understands the mechanical trade-offs, player information load, and rules complexity issues that shaped the D&D 3e design. He has clearly applied much of that knowledge to WFRP.
> 
> WFRP is a close cousin to D&D 3rd Edition. The two games share many common aspects, and a lot of common design philosophy. Many terms are interchangeable between the two games, and many game systems are extremely similar to each other. The use of the "roll under / percentile" system in WFRP tends to mask some of these similarities - the presentation of character & monster abilities are very different, which leads to a greater sense of mechanical difference than actually exists. In fact, in most cases, WFRP could be converted to a simple D20 System game by just setting all DCs to 20, and converting percentile scores to bonuses (divide the bonus by 5 and round up). This is further facilitated by the fact that most percentile values in the game are evenly divisible by 5, and external effects are presented in increments evenly divided by 5 as well, allowing fast, on-the-fly conversions without a lot of prep work.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 16, 2021)

pemerton said:


> *I think these points are highly relevant to the idea that system matters.
> 
> I will assert, unequivocally, that Cthulhu Dark is a better RPG system both in general, and for the special case of Mythos RPGing, than CoC*. Yet as you note the latter is far more widely played.
> 
> ...




In another thread, I stated that the main issue that many people (such as myself) have with the statement "system matters" is as follows:

_"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, to me, is why the statement "system matters" is incredibly problematic. 

Above, we see it in the way that I find worrying. 

1. The statement that system matters.
2. The assertion that some system is "better" than other systems.
3. The confusion as to why the "better" system isn't played more.

For point of reference, the Cthulhu Dark "lite" system can be found here.  (Link goes to .pdf). This is the four page .pdf (one page is a graphic title, one page is clarifications, so two pages of "rules") that people are discussing. Now, before going through this, I should note that in fairness, Graham Walmsley didn't stop there, but instead produced an excellent 200 page book about it, which expands the rules (occupations, insight die) and provides a lot of information for the Director (the GM) to run games. 

But looking just at the "lite" rules, most people would immediately see what the issues are with that particular rule system. It presuppose a massive number of things; a person would have to know already know all about the Lovecraft/Cthulhu mythos, would have to be well-versed in TTRPGs, and would have to fill in the details around many of the instructions - presumably with a background in other CoC TTRPGs! For example, how can one possibly understand a clarification like " even if you rolled a 6 while searching your greatuncle’s personal effects, you would not find the coordinates of Ry’leh, where Cthulhu sleeps" without a thorough background in Lovecraft already? And, again, this is a rule clarification. 

Most importantly, the rules presuppose not just a knowledge of Lovecraft and TTRPGs in general, but presupposes a comfort level with this exact style of fiction/narrative-oriented RPGing. This is neither a good nor a bad thing, but it is a thing. For example, unlike the "expanded rules" in the official Cthulhu Dark, there is only one mention that you "Choose a name and occupation" and a later mention that you can roll a die if something is within your occupational expertise, and that's it. What does that mean? How is that different than something that is within human capabilities, that has the exact same die role and chance of success? Why is it that all characters are exactly the same? For certain groups that enjoy a kind of style, that can be liberating and freeing! For others, it might be confusing or annoying (as is the idea that all combats will kill you, no matter what, no roll allowed). 

Fundamentally, that is the issue. No serious person would ever argue that rules don't matter, in the sense that they don't impact gameplay. Cthulhu Dark will play differently than D&D 3e with a battlemap and minis. For that matter, small changes in the rules can incentivize or change behavior at the table; this is all true and should be trivial.

But the assertion that some systems are better (or worse) tends to breed resentment at best.  People have very different preferences when it comes to gaming, and it is entirely possible that the success (or failure) of certain games is proof that in practice, people are voting with their dollars. In other words, people might not have the same preference for games, so it is best to continue to hope that people make a diversity of games (and systems), and that people continue to support that diversity.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 16, 2021)

I don't think it's necessarily a matter that some systems are better than others, which I think is too hard of an assertion and one that isn't generally actually argued, but, rather, that some pre-existing systems would _potentially_ be better suited than others for the purposes of a play group hoping to cultivate the desired play experience.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 16, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> I don't think it's necessarily a matter that some systems are better than others, which I think is too hard of an assertion and one that isn't generally actually argued, but, rather, that some pre-existing systems would _potentially_ be better suited than others for the purposes of a play group hoping to cultivate the desired play experience.




It's not that I disagree with that (I don't); it's more that I find that to be a statement that is difficult to be useful.

To explain- I think that there are a lot of ways people can look at "a play group" as you are using it. Earlier in this thread I think I referred to the Cheesecake Factory theory of TTRPGs. I think that is often true with groups; many groups will have divergent preferences when it comes to the "desired play experience" and as such, the game that is best-suited for the _group's desired play experience_ might be a poor match for the desired play experience of some (or most) of the individuals _within that group_. The best outcome for the group is not necessarily the best outcome for some individuals within it. 

That said, there are groups that, for whatever reason (they are in a rut, they are used to certain styles, they haven't tried other games, etc.) could migrate to a TTRPG that they would enjoy more. 

I think the issue, as I see it, is that people often don't fully credit the concept that there exist groups of people (often large groups!) that enjoy play experiences that they don't enjoy. That confusion often ends up in the mistaken belief that other groups are not playing these _potentially _superior systems, when, in fact, these other groups are playing systems that work perfectly for their own play experience.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Feb 16, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> I don't think it's necessarily a matter that some systems are better than others, which I think is too hard of an assertion and one that isn't generally actually argued, but, rather, that some pre-existing systems would _potentially_ be better suited than others for the purposes of a play group hoping to cultivate the desired play experience.



I think that it's pretty obvious that some systems are _worse _than others. I mean FATAL and RaHoWa are just bad, both mechanically and morally. You might not be able to say that apples are better than oranges (or vise-versa) but you can certainly say that fresh apples are better for eating than rotten ones. And I don't think that it's particularly controversial to say that a fresh orange is better for eating than a rotten apple.


----------



## chaochou (Feb 16, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> In another thread, I stated that the main issue that many people (such as myself) have with the statement "system matters" is as follows:
> 
> _"System matters" inevitably means that because it matters, some systems are better than others, and let me tell you why these systems are better ...._






			
				Snarf said:
			
		

> In another thread I stated that the main issue that many people (such as myself) have with the statement 'system matters' is as follows:
> 
> System matters inevitably means that because it matters some systems are better than others, and let me tell you why these systems are better...




You've started from a false premise, and that's why you reach poor conclusions.

'System matters' is no more problematic as a statement than 'metal matters'.

That doesn't mean that some metals 'are better' than others - because the only way such a statement can possibly have meaning is if one asks 'better at what?' But you fail to ask that question.

Does it matter if I use lead instead of copper to wire my house, or pig iron on a circuit board, or aluminium to shield an x-ray machine?

According to you, it doesn't, because that would suggest inherent failings in specific metals which would be a grave insult to them. This analysis is a farce, but it's the one you pursue.

The real analysis is to say 'What does Burning Wheel do better than Traveller?' or 'What does Dungeon World do better than D&D?'

Sadly, honest analysis of such questions from people with experience of said systems runs into problems on these boards because:

i) many posters are incapable of accepting that D&D doesn't do absolutely everything perfectly - even things for which it has no rules compared to games which have detailed and excellent rules for such things. So the claim that Star Fleet Battles does space combat better than D&D gets rejected out of hand. The idea that Burning Wheel does player agency better than D&D gets rejected out of hand. People start from the assumption that they can't be true and go from there. This is exacerbated by...

ii) many times posters involved in such conversations have zero experience of at least one, and often many, of the systems being discussed, and yet post as if they have such experience. Then when it's revealed, they claim they don't need any experience to know better about a game than those who have played it. Such things don't seem to be against forum rules, while challenging it runs risks.

Frankly, if you can't post actual play to back up your points about a named and specific system, I don't think any 'analysis' is worth a damn.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 16, 2021)

chaochou said:


> You've started from a false premise, and that's why you reach poor conclusions.
> 
> 'System matters' is no more problematic as a statement than 'metal matters'.
> 
> ...




This is exactly what I was discussing. 

I agree that a conversation with you is not "worth a damn," as you colorfully put it. This is everything I find so distasteful about trying to have a decent conversation about the subject, so I'll leave you to to it.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 16, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> I don't think it's necessarily a matter that some systems are better than others, which I think is too hard of an assertion and one that isn't generally actually argued, but, rather, that some pre-existing systems would _potentially_ be better suited than others for the purposes of a play group hoping to cultivate *the desired play experience.*




On *the desired play experience (agenda)*.

I would also add to the above (particularly with respect to the bolded) that the analysis is intended to forensically suss out (rather than abstract or abridge) what constitutes *desired play experience x* vs *desired play experience y* vs *desired play experience z* (and so on)?  One of the problems with lack of analysis is that it seems to just assume that there is really only one...maybe a few...desired play experiences.  In reality, there are many, many desired play experiences.

Once you understand (at a forensic level) what constitutes and differentiates desired play experiences, then you can holistically, and with focus/intent, design toward each of those play experiences (GMing principles, authority distribution, process of content - setting/situation - generation, PC build mechanics, resolution mechanics, incentive structures, metacurrencies/economies - if any, feedback loops, nature/axis of advancement, Win/Loss Con - if any, etc).  

"Designing blind" (not understanding, at a forensic level, what constitutes and differentiates desired play experiences) is almost always a pretty fraught endeavor.  One might respond "I'm not designing blind, I'm designing based on intuition."  To that I would say, (i) you either have a much greater grip on the desired play experience than you're able to articulate (which is absolutely a thing) or (ii) you've got some cognitive or experiential blind spots (possibly both) that you're not aware of and you're either smuggling them in and then extrapolating from them or ignoring them and papering over the issues that arise from that.  (ii) is absolutely "designing blind" while (i) is basically being possessed of the ability to do all the stuff in my first two paragraphs (even if you can't articulate it or "show your work").


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 16, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> This is exactly what I was discussing.
> 
> I agree that a conversation with you is not "worth a damn," as you colorfully put it. This is everything I find so distasteful about trying to have a decent conversation about the subject, so I'll leave you to to it.



Well, I'm not sure how decent a conversation you were trying to have when you started by saying that anyone suggesting a system might be better at achieving a play goal is instead suggesting that that system is absolutely better and then trying to force others into accepting it.  Strawmen are not good starts to decent conversations, unless your intent is specifically to prevent conversation you disagree with.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 16, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:
			
		

> In another thread, I stated that the main issue that many people (such as myself) have with the statement "system matters" is as follows:
> 
> _"System matters" inevitably means that because it matters, some systems are better than others, and let me tell you why these systems are better ...._



_Better_ in this context obviously is relative to some goal. I've spelled some of that out in my post and implied more.



			
				Snarf Zagyg said:
			
		

> But the assertion that some systems are better (or worse) tends to breed resentment at best.



Surely only among fanatics and the immature.

I read post after post in these General RPG threads that either assumes or asserts that D&D is better than other systems at _X_, where _X_ ranges over a very wide range of possible goals for RPG play. I often disagree. I don't feel resentment. What is it to me that others prefer a different system from the ones I do?



			
				Snarf Zagyg said:
			
		

> It presuppose a massive number of things; a person would have to know already know all about the Lovecraft/Cthulhu mythos, would have to be well-versed in TTRPGs, and would have to fill in the details around many of the instructions - presumably with a background in other CoC TTRPGs! For example, how can one possibly understand a clarification like " even if you rolled a 6 while searching your greatuncle’s personal effects, you would not find the coordinates of Ry’leh, where Cthulhu sleeps" without a thorough background in Lovecraft already? And, again, this is a rule clarification.
> 
> Most importantly,. This is neither a good nor a bad thing, but it is a thing. For example, unlike the "expanded rules" in the official Cthulhu Dark, there is only one mention that you "Choose a name and occupation" and a later mention that you can roll a die if something is within your occupational expertise, and that's it. What does that mean? How is that different than something that is within human capabilities, that has the exact same die role and chance of success? Why is it that all characters are exactly the same? For certain groups that enjoy a kind of style, that can be liberating and freeing! For others, it might be confusing or annoying (as is the idea that all combats will kill you, no matter what, no roll allowed).
> 
> ...



I don't find it terribly outrageous that a game calling itself _Cthulhu Dark_ should presuppose familiarity with Mythos concepts and literature. Similarly, I think, Top Secret presupposes familiarity with the spy genre, and Classic Traveller with basic sci-fi ideas like starports, starships, humanity colonising the starts, etc.

It's true that probably no one can learn to play RPGs from Cthulhu Dark but as I posted upthread, nor can they learn to play from Classic Traveller. That doesn't stop Classic Traveller from being a masterpiece of RPGing.

As for the claim that _characters in Cthulhu Dark are all the same_ or someone would be puzzled by the idea that _your roll a die if something is within your occupational expertise_ - seriously? The first game of Cthulhu Dark I played had a longshoreman, an investigative journalist and a legal secretary. These characters were not the same, even if we focus on nothing more than their jobs. As for what is within their occupational expertise - you don't need a rulebook to tell you that, just a bit of familiarity with the real world as filtered through whatever thematic and stereotypical conceptions the players bring to the table. Legal secretaries can take shorthand and compose memos and book meetings. Reporters can develop film and snoop. Longshoremen can lift things and rouse crowds of their fellows.

13th Age uses _exactly the same approach_ for applying bonuses to non-combat checks based on PC backgrounds. I've never seen anyone suggest that in 13th Age all characters are the same out of combat. Conversely, if someone can only play a RPG if their ability to earn bonuses is specified with the sort of detail that Gygax's RPG specifies the perception of elves and the mining abilities of dwarves, that is a clear sign that system matters!



Snarf Zagyg said:


> people might not have the same preference for games, so it is best to continue to hope that people make a diversity of games (and systems), and that people continue to support that diversity.



What is quite ironic about this is that those posters, and RPGers, who assert that _system matters_ are the ones who are playing and supporting a diversity of games. (The iterative causation here is obvious: playing multiple diverse systems will quickly reveal that system matters, and the fact that system matters is what generates the desire to play a diversity of systems, to get those different experiences.)

It is those who play only D&D or its immediate derivatives who most prominently deny that system matters, and who most prominently sneer at the diversity of games.


----------



## prabe (Feb 16, 2021)

Manbearcat said:


> On *the desired play experience (agenda)*.
> 
> I would also add to the above (particularly with respect to the bolded) that the analysis is intended to forensically suss out (rather than abstract or abridge) what constitutes *desired play experience x* vs *desired play experience y* vs *desired play experience z* (and so on)?  One of the problems with lack of analysis is that it seems to just assume that there is really only one...maybe a few...desired play experiences.  In reality, there are many, many desired play experiences.



Indeed. I think there are some people who want to play different games for different agendas, and there are others who don't--possibly because they prefer for the agenda to emerge from play, or at least not to be determined before play starts. That is (or feels to me as though it is) how the games I'm running have worked out.


Manbearcat said:


> "Designing blind" (not understanding, at a forensic level, what constitutes and differentiates desired play experiences) is almost always a pretty fraught endeavor.  One might respond "I'm not designing blind, I'm designing based on intuition."  To that I would say, (i) you either have a much greater grip on the desired play experience than you're able to articulate (which is absolutely a thing) or (ii) you've got some cognitive or experiential blind spots (possibly both) that you're not aware of and you're either smuggling them in and then extrapolating from them or ignoring them and papering over the issues that arise from that.  (ii) is absolutely "designing blind" while (i) is basically being possessed of the ability to do all the stuff in my first two paragraphs (even if you can't articulate it or "show your work").



I don't exactly disagree with this, but I think it's ... important? relevant? ... to point out that your (i) and (ii) aren't mutually exclusive: It is entirely possible to have both a solid intuitive grasp on the matter and vast echoing blind spots.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 16, 2021)

prabe said:


> Indeed. I think there are some people who want to play different games for different agendas, and there are others who don't--possibly because they prefer for the agenda to emerge from play, or at least not to be determined before play starts. That is (or feels to me as though it is) how the games I'm running have worked out.
> 
> I don't exactly disagree with this, but I think it's ... important? relevant? ... to point out that your (i) and (ii) aren't mutually exclusive: It is entirely possible to have both a solid intuitive grasp on the matter and vast echoing blind spots.




What do you have in mind for what (i) and (ii) combined look like when it comes to analyzing or running or designing TTRPGs?

I’d ask lowkey but he appears to have blocked me!


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 17, 2021)

Manbearcat said:


> What do you have in mind for what (ii) looks like when it comes to analyzing or running or designing TTRPGs?
> 
> I’d ask lowkey but he appears to have blocked me!



Same, but be warned: snarf doesn't like people mentioning he's lowkey returned any more than he likes people who dare to disagree.


----------



## prabe (Feb 17, 2021)

Manbearcat said:


> What do you have in mind for what (i) and (ii) combined look like when it comes to analyzing or running or designing TTRPGs?



I've encountered examples in other fields--fiction writers who clearly *got* what makes fiction work, but hadn't read much in the way of books about it, and couldn't really articulate why a given story worked, or didn't; musicians who could *do* music, but couldn't read or write music at all, and only had the vaguest sense of the intervals or chords or technology they were working with.

Do I have any specific examples from TRPGs? Not particularly, though I'd say the earliest examples might come close--they seem to have been a combination of intuition, extrapolation, and trial-and-error (but the history of TRPGs isn't exactly my forte).

I think someone might run with some success (defined, I guess, as "the people at the table having fun") focusing primarily on the narrative goals the players/characters have chosen to pursue, operating mostly thinking about A) what makes narrative sense and B) what they'd enjoy as a player. Given that someone isn't prepping or running with much thought for TRPG theory, that might be close.


----------



## TheSword (Feb 17, 2021)

I think part of the problem is how reductive the argument gets.

It is often claimed that X game is better at Y because of Z.

However that ignores the fact that the game system may be unsuitable or undesirable for a particular person or group for a whole host of other reasons. These are complex systems and there are dozens and dozens of factors that might put a person off using it. Both system related and production related.

So people argue for a particular system because of its great qualities in one area even though it’s not suitable because of another reason. If those flaws don’t matter to the advocate it’s understandable that the advocate gets frustrated when they see it as their best option and other people don’t.

I think this applies to D&D and it works for Dungeon World, Travelled, GURPs whatever.

We make peace with the system we like, mitigate  its flaws and extols its virtues. It’s part of being a fan.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 17, 2021)

TheSword said:


> I think part of the problem is how reductive the argument gets.
> 
> It is often claimed that X game is better at Y because of Z.
> 
> ...



It does not ignore this at all.  X may indeed be better at Y because of Z and you can not like X.  In that case, X isn't for you.

For instance, when I say that Blades in the Dark does a better job at replicating the kind of story features in the show Leverage than D&D, this is undoubtedly true -- it is designed, in large part, to do just this.  However, that doesn't mean you should like BitD, or that you should prefer it to D&D, even if running a heist a la Leverage.  It's a clear statement, though, that it does that job better. 

The side to this is that you may not at all care to run a game that emulates Leverage, and that's cool, too.  The analysis about how a system functions is not the same as a judgement call you make about your preferences.

As for your last, I'm a fan of D&D, but I play other games for other things.  I play D&D when I want to play a D&D game.  I play BitD when I want to do BitD things.  Etc, etc.  I'm a fan of all of these games.  Being a fan doesn't mean you're stuck with the one thing.


----------



## TheSword (Feb 17, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> It does not ignore this at all.  X may indeed be better at Y because of Z and you can not like X.  In that case, X isn't for you.
> 
> For instance, when I say that Blades in the Dark does a better job at replicating the kind of story features in the show Leverage than D&D, this is undoubtedly true -- it is designed, in large part, to do just this.  However, that doesn't mean you should like BitD, or that you should prefer it to D&D, even if running a heist a la Leverage.  It's a clear statement, though, that it does that job better.
> 
> ...



I never said you were stuck with one system. I said it’s natural for fans to mitigate flaws and extol virtues.

You’re missing the point. Blades in the Dark might be good for your group to represent Leverage... I have no earthly idea of what specific points you’re making about either the show or the game but hey ho... It may be entirely inappropriate for another group to use to tell those stories though for a whole host of other reasons.

Maybe a game system is out of print, or the production values are poor, or there isn’t a translation, or the products don’t feature quality maps, or the rules are too sparse, or too complicated, or too similationist, or too heroic, or  the opposite, or open to abuse by optimizers, or not usable by optimizers, or lacks granular options, or has too many options, or doesn’t feature LGBT representation, or does, or isn’t supported by enough published adventures or one of the designers is an arse, or a Kickstarter failed and burnt a load of people, or or or or.

Those things that others find an issue might not matter to you. You just keep maintaining X game is fine because you like Y about it.

What matters is the method that your table, or mine finds best. It’s quite possible we can tell the same stories with different systems that suit our individual tastes.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 17, 2021)

TheSword said:


> I never said you were stuck with one system. I said it’s natural for fans to mitigate flaws and extol virtues.



Yes, I'll agree it's often the case with fandom that loyalty to the object of fandom comes before honest analysis.


TheSword said:


> You’re missing the point. Blades in the Dark might be good for your group to represent Leverage... I have no earthly idea of what specific points you’re making about either the show or the game but hey ho... It may be entirely unfor another group to tell those stories though for a whole host of other reasons.



No, BitD does Leverage better -- it has specific systems that emulate features of that show.  You can still not like it for many varied reasons.  The ones most often given by those steeped in D&D are usually pointed at the how fiction is generated in play by all players rather than the sole, often premeditated, domain of the GM.  And, to be fair, there's a good bit of validity to this -- that kind of play puts a lot more on the players, who may or may not really want that level of responsibility or effort.

I don't really care if you don't like BitD.  It won't stop me playing it.  It also won't stop me playing 5e, the game I'm running at the moment.


TheSword said:


> Maybe a game system is out of print, or the production values are poor, or there isn’t a translation, or the products don’t feature quality maps, or the rules are too sparse, or too complicated, or too similationist, or too heroic, or  the opposite, or open to abuse by optimizers, or not usable by optimizers, or lacks granular options, or has too many options, or doesn’t feature LGBT representation, or does, or isn’t supported by enough published adventures or one of the designers is an arse, or a Kickstarter failed and burnt a load of people, or or or or.



Ah, the gish gallop.  Yeah, sure, there's lots of reasons to dislike something.  Disliking a system for reasons doesn't mean it's not better suited to a particular play goal.  There are a number of fine games I dislike, but that do things well.  I dislike FATE, but it does what it does pretty well, and can generate play that other systems can't or have trouble with.


TheSword said:


> Those things that others find an issue might not matter to you. You just keep maintaining X game is fine because you like Y about it.



Those reasons don't address how system X does thing Y, though, so your point is left hanging.


TheSword said:


> What matters is the method your table, or mine finds best. It’s quite possible we can tell the same stories with different systems that suit our individual tastes.



I agree -- you should absolutely play the game you like and that does the best for you.  However, asserting that you don't like games because they're not D&D and so can't do something better than D&D is just sticking your head in the sand.  D&D does things that are better than other systems (honestly, at this point, the main thing D&D does better is be D&D, which is a thing, and valuable).  I will 100% absolutely state that Blades in the Dark does dungeons horribly, and it does pre-planned cool plots horribly (not even at all, it's so bad at it).  If you want an adventure path, DO NOT pick up BitD.  It's rubbish at it.  Other systems do some of the things BitD does better -- even some of the things close to it's heart.  But, overall, if you want a game that does scrappy rogue crews climbing up the ladder in a corrupted city, it's damn hard to find a better system for it than Blades.  And, given that, you can STILL not like it!  Trust me, you won't hurt it's feelings (or mine).

The need to defend against even the suggestion of fault seems to be a fairly unique things to mono-gamers.  Which, honestly, is almost tautological -- there's a feedback loop to mono-gaming.  And, to be absolutely clear, there's nothing wrong at all with mono-gaming!  NOTHING AT ALL!  The weird fetish to reflexively defend the game, though, is annoying.


----------



## TheSword (Feb 17, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> Yes, I'll agree it's often the case with fandom that loyalty to the object of fandom comes before honest analysis.
> 
> No, BitD does Leverage better -- it has specific systems that emulate features of that show.  You can still not like it for many varied reasons.  The ones most often given by those steeped in D&D are usually pointed at the how fiction is generated in play by all players rather than the sole, often premeditated, domain of the GM.  And, to be fair, there's a good bit of validity to this -- that kind of play puts a lot more on the players, who may or may not really want that level of responsibility or effort.
> 
> ...



I see you are the one making sweeping statements of opinion as fact.

Let me give you a hypothetical example. Blades in the Dark is not suitable for my group to tell Heist style stories like Leverage, because they fundamentally don’t like the approach that they are presumed to have what they needed at the time. They enjoy the preparation and planning elements, not retrospectively doing this as the game goes on. That type of rule mechanic doesn’t fit their tastes. So your sweeping statement that the system is objectively better at this is just plain wrong for them. It doesn’t work for them.

Let me give you another example. Our group likes gritty, low magic, grim dark fantasy from time to time, where they play down and outs, not heroes. I’m a fan of WFRP. However the fact that the system is open to massive abuse particularly at higher experience points means it just doesn’t work for our group. For many people WFRP is the best way to tell those stories. While for us, a heavily modified 1st edition pathfinder or AIME based 5e is the best way.

These are all just opinions of course. But feel free to make more assertions as fact. I’m honestly amazed you think I have any skin in the game as to which system you play. I am entirely ambivalent.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Feb 17, 2021)

Note to self: convert the settings from Thristy Sword Lesbians for my next Pathfinder campaign...


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 17, 2021)

TheSword said:


> I see you are the one making sweeping statements of opinion as fact.
> 
> Let me give you a hypothetical example. Blades in the Dark is not suitable for my group to tell Heist style stories like Leverage, because they fundamentally don’t like the approach that they are presumed to have what they needed at the time. They enjoy the preparation and planning elements, not retrospectively doing this as the game goes on. That type of rule mechanic doesn’t fit their tastes. So your sweeping statement that the system is objectively better at this is just plain wrong for them. It doesn’t work for them.



Which is a perfectly good reason to not like BitD, but it's not because it doesn't do Leverage well.  It's because they prefer a different play goal and agenda.  Which is what I've been saying.


TheSword said:


> Let me give you another example. Our group likes gritty, low magic, grim dark fantasy from time to time, where they play down and outs, not heroes. I’m a fan of WFRP. However the fact that the system is open to massive abuse particularly at higher experience points means it just doesn’t work for our group. For many people WFRP is the best way to tell those stories. While for us, a heavily modified 1st edition pathfinder or AIME based 5e is the best way.



Okay.  The differences between WFRP and D&D are slight, as noted previously in this thread.  That you find the mechanical implementation of D&D to do better for you is great, I'm glad you've found a game that works for you.  However, to my point, I'd strongly recommend that you avoid Toon or Paranoia as games that are grim and gritty -- both do these things terribly.  WFRP does grim and gritty much better than either, and so does D&D.

See how that works?


TheSword said:


> These are all just opinions of course. But feel free to make more assertions as fact. I’m honestly amazed you think I have any skin in the game as to which system you play. I am entirely ambivalent.



I'm pretty confident that BitD does Leverage better than D&D as a statement of fact.  That you don't prefer that is your preference, and perfectly fine.  I'm also confident in saying that Toon does Grim and Gritty terribly, and you're choice of D&D for this itch is well founded because D&D does Grim and Gritty much better than Toon.

You can dislike a thing, and it still do something well, or better than another system.  What appears to me is that you prefer D&D because you like D&D.  Perfectly valid, glad you've found a great game and it serves your needs.  I love D&D, myself, but I also like Leverage, and find that when that itch needs scratching, I can pick up a game that does that better.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 17, 2021)

MichaelSomething said:


> Note to self: convert the settings from Thristy Sword Lesbians for my next Pathfinder campaign...



Oh, my!


----------



## TheSword (Feb 17, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> Which is a perfectly good reason to not like BitD, but it's not because it doesn't do Leverage well.  It's because they prefer a different play goal and agenda.  Which is what I've been saying.
> 
> Okay.  The differences between WFRP and D&D are slight, as noted previously in this thread.  That you find the mechanical implementation of D&D to do better for you is great, I'm glad you've found a game that works for you.  However, to my point, I'd strongly recommend that you avoid Toon or Paranoia as games that are grim and gritty -- both do these things terribly.  WFRP does grim and gritty much better than either, and so does D&D.
> 
> ...



“You should play my new role playing game. It’s better than D&D for running heroic fantasy games.”

“Oh cool, I love heroic fantasy games. will I like it?”

“Nah, it’s not much fun. But it is better for running heroic fantasy games.”

If my group doesn’t like it, any claim you make that it’s better at running a particular type of game is moot. How much you like a game for the what you’re trying to achieve with it, is the entire point.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 17, 2021)

TheSword said:


> “You should play my new role playing game. It’s better than D&D for running heroic fantasy games.”



Said no one.


TheSword said:


> “Oh cool, I love heroic fantasy games. will I like it?”
> 
> “Nah, it’s not much fun. But it is better for running heroic fantasy games.”



Said no one.


TheSword said:


> If my group doesn’t like it, any claim you make that it’s better at running a particular type of game is moot.
> 
> How much you like a game at portraying what you’re trying to achieve with it, is the entire point.



Yes, if you don't like it, the claim isn't of much value to you, but that doesn't render the claim invalid.  And, I fully agree, finding a game you enjoy is the entire point -- but honest, clear enunciation of how systems work and how they differ is a tool to do this, not a mandate directing your choice.

I was very specific in my point about Blades in the Dark.  Other systems do Leverage well, too.  D&D doesn't.  It's not well equipped for that kind of emulation, and *that's fine*  It's strengths lie in other places.  However, reflexive defensiveness over the claim that BitD does Leverage style games better than D&D, up to and including the argument that you don't like it for other reasons or that there's any claim that you should or must play it, is ridiculous.  No one's claiming this.  I certainly don't -- I'm running 5e right now, so clearly I don't have any problems with it.  I'm even running an AP  -- Descent into Avernus -- which is terribly put together in places but we're having fun and that's the part that matters.  See, I can even say that the AP sucks (and man does it in places), but that it's still fun and I play it!  Drop the need to defend D&D -- trust me, it'll do fine without it.


----------



## TheSword (Feb 17, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> Said no one.
> 
> Said no one.
> 
> ...



I think you’ll find in my last posts I haven’t defended D&D once. In fact you’ll see I said this applies as much to people claiming D&D and ignoring its flaws as anything else.

What you are reflexively arguing against is the idea that what might work for some people might not work for others. You like chunky sauce, I like smooth sauce. If I don’t like bits of tomato in my sauce. It doesn’t matter how fresh, or authentic, or healthy it is, if I don’t like it. Your claims that Chunky is better for making bolognaise are wholly unhelpful. Now you can tell me why you think chunky is good for it, but don’t tell me it’s better as a statement of fact. It ain’t better for me!

When you say something can’t do X (as you say a fair bit) you actually mean not very good at doing. Which is an entirely relative term. The D&D could be used for a scientific gritty futuristic horror game. It’s just wouldn’t be very good at it. Starfinder might be better, or better yet Alien. If those systems work for you. However in the unlikely even they don’t, and D&D is your best bet then you mangle D&D into a vehicle for it. Or whichever system you can use.

No one is saying the virtues of other games can’t be celebrated. Just lay off the absolutes.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 17, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> Other systems do Leverage well, too.  D&D doesn't.



Like Leverage. 



TheSword said:


> What you are reflexively arguing against is the idea that what might work for some people might not work for others.



Ovinomancer has explicitly said this, so I'm confused about what you are actually arguing. 

IME, more often then not, when people talk about _system matters_ or games that are design to do X, it's not generally in terms of the BEST or ONLY game that can emulate a genre/game experience. I think such absolute statements are relatively rare outside of strawmanning. Instead, it is more typically about helping to generate _a set of games_ to choose from so that a person/group can decide for themselves according to their own gaming needs and preferences. But part of that requires _an awareness of_ and _critically engaging_ the respective strengths and weaknesses of each game in order to understand what sort of experiences a given game cultivates, whether that's intended or unintended. 

The other times when system matters seems to come up in discussion, IME, are when you see either (1) people who are clearly fighting against the system and/or trying to get it do something else it wasn't designed for (i.e., trying to hammer a nail with a screwdriver), and (2) when people are shocked/horrified/amazed to learn that other games have different design approaches to an issue than what they are accustomed to (i.e., the TTRPG equivalent of "culture shock").


----------



## Neonchameleon (Feb 17, 2021)

TheSword said:


> I see you are the one making sweeping statements of opinion as fact.
> 
> Let me give you a hypothetical example. Blades in the Dark is not suitable for my group to tell Heist style stories like Leverage, because they fundamentally don’t like the approach that they are presumed to have what they needed at the time. They enjoy the preparation and planning elements, not retrospectively doing this as the game goes on. That type of rule mechanic doesn’t fit their tastes. So your sweeping statement that the system is objectively better at this is just plain wrong for them. It doesn’t work for them.



I see that you are missing a huge point. There is nothing wrong with wanting to do the preparation and planning in intense detail. But if you want to do the preparation and planning in intense detail you do not want to tell a heist style story _like Leverage. _I don't know whether you've ever seen an episode of Leverage but in Leverage they do not sit round and do all the preparation and planning in intense detail on screen. They show onscreen a basic outline of a plan then basically fast forward through it until it goes pear shaped. And Blades in the Dark is excellent at doing that.

What you are saying is therefore that your group wants a Heist style story that is emphatically _not _like Leverage and that the reason Blades in the Dark does not work with your group is _because _it is like Leverage. There is nothing at all wrong with that - but saying "Blades does things like Leverage and my group doesn't want things to be done the way they are in Leverage" is not a rebuttal to "Blades is an excellent match for Leverage". Instead what you are doing is blaming a dog for not being a cat. And then saying that it's a "sweeping statement of opinion" that when your group wants a cat that a fully trained guide dog is a good dog.


----------



## TheSword (Feb 17, 2021)

Neonchameleon said:


> I see that you are missing a huge point. There is nothing wrong with wanting to do the preparation and planning in intense detail. But if you want to do the preparation and planning in intense detail you do not want to tell a heist style story _like Leverage. _I don't know whether you've ever seen an episode of Leverage but in Leverage they do not sit round and do all the preparation and planning in intense detail on screen. They show onscreen a basic outline of a plan then basically fast forward through it until it goes pear shaped. And Blades in the Dark is excellent at doing that.
> 
> What you are saying is therefore that your group wants a Heist style story that is emphatically _not _like Leverage and that the reason Blades in the Dark does not work with your group is _because _it is like Leverage. There is nothing at all wrong with that - but saying "Blades does things like Leverage and my group doesn't want things to be done the way they are in Leverage" is not a rebuttal to "Blades is an excellent match for Leverage". Instead what you are doing is blaming a dog for not being a cat. And then saying that it's a "sweeping statement of opinion" that when your group wants a cat that a fully trained guide dog is a good dog.



It was an example. I could easily have said as a DM I fundamentally disagree with the resistance mechanic or object to the lack of support materials or published heists, or the fact that I don’t want to translate it from a Victoriana setting. There could be lots of reasons the system isn’t right for me. Those aren’t my reasons. They’re just examples. It doesn’t matter what the reason is.

Telling me that I’m wrong and the system is right is just wasted pixels. It’s all just a matter of taste. Otherwise you would be telling me Leverage the Rpg is best for replicating Leverage. Presumably there is a reason you aren’t. I respect that.

I find it really hard to understand why people are so set on trying to force people to acknowledge that a system is fundamentally better. As if it matters what one person thinks. No system is perfect, they are all going to have pro’s and cons. Talk about the pros and cons sure. But acknowledge that different people will weigh pro’s and cons differently.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 17, 2021)

TheSword said:


> I think part of the problem is how reductive the argument gets.
> 
> It is often claimed that X game is better at Y because of Z.
> 
> However that ignores the fact that the game system may be unsuitable or undesirable for a particular person or group for a whole host of other reasons. These are complex systems and there are dozens and dozens of factors that might put a person off using it. Both system related and production related.





TheSword said:


> It may be entirely inappropriate for another group to use to tell those stories though for a whole host of other reasons.
> 
> Maybe a game system is out of print, or the production values are poor, or there isn’t a translation, or the products don’t feature quality maps, or the rules are too sparse, or too complicated, or too similationist, or too heroic, or  the opposite, or open to abuse by optimizers, or not usable by optimizers, or lacks granular options, or has too many options, or doesn’t feature LGBT representation, or does, or isn’t supported by enough published adventures or one of the designers is an arse, or a Kickstarter failed and burnt a load of people, or or or or.
> 
> ...



A lot of what you refer to here has nothing to do with _system_: being out of print, production values and presentation more generally, translations, etc.

And the fact that you might find a system too complicated or too simple hardly suggest that _system doesn't matter_.

Also, not all of us are RPGing _to tell stories_.



TheSword said:


> D&D could be used for a scientific gritty futuristic horror game. It’s just wouldn’t be very good at it.



I thought you were _opposed_ to these judgements of quality.

But in any event, I don't think D&D could be used for a scientific gritty futuristic horror game. It doesn't have the right components in character building or action resolution.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Feb 17, 2021)

TheSword said:


> It was an example. I could easily have said as a DM I fundamentally disagree with the resistance mechanic or object to the lack of support materials or published heists, or the fact that I don’t want to translate it from a Victoriana setting. There could be lots of reasons the system isn’t right for me. Those aren’t my reasons. They’re just examples. It doesn’t matter what the reason is.
> 
> Telling me that I’m wrong and the system is right is just wasted pixels. It’s all just a matter of taste. Otherwise you would be telling me Leverage the Rpg is best for replicating Leverage. Presumably there is a reason you aren’t. I respect that.
> 
> I find it really hard to understand why people are so set on trying to force people to acknowledge that a system is fundamentally better. As if it matters what one person thinks. No system is perfect, they are all going to have pro’s and cons. Talk about the pros and cons sure. But acknowledge that different people will weigh pro’s and cons differently.



There are reasons the system isn't right for you - and that is fine. But that doesn't make the system other than great at what it does. And your objections all boil down to "I don't want what the system and setting does". There is nothing at all wrong with not wanting what a system does - but those do not in any way mean that the system isn't good at what it does.

The Leverage system is actually _excellent _at replicating Leverage. It isn't any better at replicating Leverage-style heists than Blades in the Dark because Blades more or less took the heist rules from Leverage and very slightly adapted them. The Blades downtime and turf mechanics don't fit the Leverage setting that well, so Leverage is better for a full Leverage game but the heist rules themselves are every bit as close as D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder. (At many levels Blades really is the offspring of Leverage and Apocalypse World with the addition of Stress).


----------



## TheSword (Feb 17, 2021)

pemerton said:


> A lot of what you refer to here has nothing to do with _system_: being out of print, production values and presentation more generally, translations, etc.



Such things are inextricably linked to system though. Without the delivery mechanism and conveying the system to people in a way people will appreciate, the system doesn’t really matter.


pemerton said:


> And the fact that you might find a system too complicated or too simple hardly suggest that _system doesn't matter_.



I was using it as examples of why one persons claim that a person should use DW, Fate, Traveller, D&D or PF2 might not be the best vehicle for some people. Despite its advocates raving about it and getting pissy with people who disagree. System does matter to me, just not as much as other things.


pemerton said:


> Also, not all of us are RPGing _to tell stories_.



Replace tell stories with play a game then.


pemerton said:


> I thought you were _opposed_ to these judgements of quality.



It’s a personal opinion. I’m allowed an opinion about quality. I’m just not allowed to tell you yours is invalid.


pemerton said:


> But in any event, I don't think D&D could be used for a scientific gritty futuristic horror game. It doesn't have the right components in character building or action resolution.



Here we go again. You can absolutely have a d20, 6 ability score, skill proficiency based system using 5e in space. Only a couple of classes would fit, most equipment would be obsolete and many items wouldn’t be available in the rules but you *could* do it. It just probably wouldn’t be very deep, satisfying or fun. It’s all relative.


----------



## TheSword (Feb 17, 2021)

Neonchameleon said:


> There are reasons the system isn't right for you - and that is fine. But that doesn't make the system other than great at what it does. And your objections all boil down to "I don't want what the system and setting does". There is nothing at all wrong with not wanting what a system does - but those do not in any way mean that the system isn't good at what it does.
> 
> The Leverage system is actually _excellent _at replicating Leverage. It isn't any better at replicating Leverage-style heists than Blades in the Dark because Blades more or less took the heist rules from Leverage and very slightly adapted them. The Blades downtime and turf mechanics don't fit the Leverage setting that well, so Leverage is better for a full Leverage game but the heist rules themselves are every bit as close as D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder. (At many levels Blades really is the offspring of Leverage and Apocalypse World with the addition of Stress).



Being great at what it does is subjective. If other elements wrapped in with system or components of system dont allow a particular person to use it in a way that works, then it isn’t great *for them*. To be clear I’m not talking specifics here so please don’t get drawn into one system it’s irrelevant.

Any way, I’m repeating myself and it’s probably getting annoying. So I’ll stop replying to claims that a systems great and that people for whom isn't great are wrong.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Feb 17, 2021)

TheSword said:


> Being great at what it does is subjective. If other elements wrapped in with system or components of system dont allow a particular person to use it in a way that works, then it isn’t great *for them*. To be clear I’m not talking specifics here so please don’t get drawn into one system it’s irrelevant.
> 
> Any way, I’m repeating myself and it’s probably getting annoying. So I’ll stop replying to claims that a systems great, people for whom isn't great are wrong.



Finding some of those claims to reply to would be a good start. Just because a system is great at what it does doesn't mean it is what you want. A good guide dog is not and will never be a cat. And if you want to spend a lot of time planning your heists a Leverage-style heist game is not going to be what you want precisely because it is a good system for Leverage style heists.

The point of specifying what a system is good at is so you can work out what will fit what you want.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 17, 2021)

TheSword said:


> You can absolutely have a d20, 6 ability score, skill proficiency based system using 5e in space. Only a couple of classes would fit, most equipment would be obsolete and many items wouldn’t be available in the rules but you *could* do it. It just probably wouldn’t be very deep, satisfying or fun. It’s all relative.



How's it gritty? What skill is used to pilot a starship? Or operate a computer? Does a fighter's archery fighting style give a bonus to hit with blasters?

To me this is like saying that Prince Valiant can be used to play Earthsea because all you have to do is graft on a player-side system for magic.


----------



## TheSword (Feb 17, 2021)

Neonchameleon said:


> Finding some of those claims to reply to would be a good start. Just because a system is great at what it does doesn't mean it is what you want. A good guide dog is not and will never be a cat. And if you want to spend a lot of time planning your heists a Leverage-style heist game is not going to be what you want precisely because it is a good system for Leverage style heists.
> 
> The point of specifying what a system is good at is so you can work out what will fit what you want.



Yes, but game systems are usually not simple binary systems. They have pros and cons. I’m amazed that you think everything can be reduced down to good or bad.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 17, 2021)

TheSword said:


> I’m allowed an opinion about quality. I’m just not allowed to tell you yours is invalid.



I don't know who's telling whom that anything is invalid. Upthread I also expressed an opinion about quality, namely, that Cthulhu Dark is a better system than CoC, especially for Mythos RPGing. Why is your opinion OK but mine not?

EDIT: I mean, I can rephrase mine to strictly parallel yours: CoC can be used to do Mythos RPGing, it's just not especially good for it.

Assuming that Mythos RPGing is feasible at all, it probably follows from the preceding sentence that there is another system that is better, just as - presumably - it follows from your judgement of quality that there is a system that is better for gritty, futuristic sci-fi horror. In my case, I've nominated the better system: Cthulhu Dark.


----------



## TheSword (Feb 17, 2021)

pemerton said:


> How's it gritty? What skill is used to pilot a starship? Or operate a computer? Does a fighter's archery fighting style give a bonus to hit with blasters?
> 
> To me this is like saying that Prince Valiant can be used to play Earthsea because all you have to do is graft on a player-side system for magic.



You have totally missed the point. I’m not saying it would be better than any other system. I’m saying if you took all the elements out that didn’t fit you could still replicate a very restricted element of that type of game

The reason for the point was that every game is weighed good or bad in relation to what else is available. Good when assessing quality is a subjective term. As is bad.

Regarding my other post you claimed 

“I thought you were _opposed_ to these judgements of quality.”

Where I responded you can but recognizing that they are your opinion and only valid to you and other people as far as you understand them.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 17, 2021)

TheSword said:


> You have totally missed the point. I’m not saying it would be better than any other system. I’m saying if you took all the elements out that didn’t fit you could still replicate a very restricted element of that type of game



What element? That there are characters. With STR, DEX etc. And we have a sense of how well they can climb or fight with swords.

That's not a "very restricted element" of a gritty futuristic sci-fi horror RPG. It's not really an element of it at all. There's no grit, nothing futuristic or sci-fi, and no horror.


----------



## TheSword (Feb 17, 2021)

pemerton said:


> What element? That there are characters. With STR, DEX etc. And we have a sense of how well they can climb or fight with swords.
> 
> That's not a "very restricted element" of a gritty futuristic sci-fi horror RPG. It's not really an element of it at all. There's no grit, nothing futuristic or sci-fi, and no horror.



And fists.

Do you understand the point though that all game systems are good or bad in relation to other systems?

There is a spectrum between ‘*does exactly what you want*’ and ‘*does nothing of what you want*’ and that no roleplaying game does _nothing of what you want_ because they all at least have a player character even if nothing else about the game is right. All we debate is where on the spectrum a particular game system falls... but that will vary for every person. How good a game system is depends on how close it matches ‘exactly what you want.’


----------



## turnip_farmer (Feb 17, 2021)

pemerton said:


> How's it gritty? What skill is used to pilot a starship? Or operate a computer? Does a fighter's archery fighting style give a bonus to hit with blasters?



Intelligence would be used for piloting ships and operating computers. You'd gain a bonus to your hit roll with blasters if you were proficient in blasters. I don't think there's any such thing as an archery fighting style in 5e.

Not trying to claim that 5e would be a great system for science-fiction, but the fact that you would need to replace proficiencies referring to medieval stuff with proficiencies referring to sci-fi stuff is obviously not a stumbling block.


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 17, 2021)

TheSword said:


> There is a spectrum between ‘*does exactly what you want*’ and ‘*does nothing of what you want*’ and that no roleplaying game does _nothing of what you want_ because they all at least have a player character even if nothing else about the game is right. All we debate is where on the spectrum a particular game system falls... but that will vary for every person. How good a game system is depends on how close it matches ‘exactly what you want.’



I think you're getting pushback because you're arguing that quality (being good or bad) is inherently subjective; I think a lot of people would argue we can make determinations of quality on more objective metrics.  

I'm not saying I know what those metrics are, but most criticism of anything is rooted in the idea that there's more to evaluating a work than our purely subjective reception of it.


----------



## TheSword (Feb 17, 2021)

TwoSix said:


> I think you're getting pushback because you're arguing that quality (being good or bad) is inherently subjective; I think a lot of people would argue we can make determinations of quality on more objective metrics.
> 
> I'm not saying I know what those metrics are, but most criticism of anything is rooted in the idea that there's more to evaluating a work than our purely subjective reception of it.



That’s fair. I just think so many of these things are subjective that the things that aren’t don’t really count for much.

I know from precious threads that there are elements of a rpg product or system that I consider important that other people think in this thread are irrelevant or at worst actively bad - associated published modules for instance - that they see as anathema. Without them the system just isn’t gonna work for me. For them it’s a better system without them. Different strokes for different folks.

There are as many differences as there are people i suspect. The need to assert preference with a claimed backing in the system is why edition wars can be so recriminating.


----------



## prabe (Feb 17, 2021)

TwoSix said:


> I think you're getting pushback because you're arguing that quality (being good or bad) is inherently subjective; I think a lot of people would argue we can make determinations of quality on more objective metrics.
> 
> I'm not saying I know what those metrics are, but most criticism of anything is rooted in the idea that there's more to evaluating a work than our purely subjective reception of it.



I don't disagree that there is a point to which quality is less subjective, but past a threshold of competence it really does come to a matter of taste/preference. If you know fiction or food or music, you can tell when a professionally competent writer or cook or performer is just not to your taste, and when they're just bad at what they're doing.

I don't think there are precise metrics for the sorts of things people talk about on these boards--it might be possible to say accurately that one game has more [feature] than another, but I don't know of any real way to quantify it. I think this makes the metallurgical metaphor deployed earlier in the thread ... non applicable, and probably weak.

Are there compromises in D&D 5E? Yeah, but given they were making a concerted effort to collect the best game elements (and fan bases) of the various prior editions that's not surprising. I think they did a pretty good job, but other people have other opinions. I'm running 5E by choice, not because D&D is a default I can't get past.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 17, 2021)

TheSword said:


> I was using it as examples of why one persons claim that a person should use DW, Fate, Traveller, D&D or PF2 might not be the best vehicle for some people. Despite its advocates raving about it and getting pissy with people who disagree. System does matter to me, just not as much as other things.



Incidentally Rob Donoghue, one of the creators/writers for Fate, actually has "gotten pissy with people" who believe that Fate can do anything precisely because (1) _system matters_ and (2) the Fate system is not appropriate for running every type of game.



Neonchameleon said:


> The point of specifying what a system is good at is so you can work out what will fit what you want.



This is the underlying point about _system matters_ to me. I believe @hawkeyefan made a car comparison earlier, which is pretty apt. Many people don't necessarily care too much about the car - myself included - apart from the fact that it works, it's affordable, it's the right color, and it suits their daily needs (i.e., getting to work, room for family, etc.). Obviously the design and make matters, but it's an important to recognize that your Mini Cooper is not designed for off-road wilderness treks, hauling massive cargo, or top speed acceleration and handling. Automobiles are designed for different things. Can you go off-road, haul cargo, or accelerate to high speeds with your Mini Cooper? Sure, but if you want do any of these things regularly (and safely) without breaking-down your car, then you would potentially be better buying something else than a Mini Cooper.  

We could expand this conversation to a lot of different products - e.g., computers, electronics, kitchen ware and appliances, hardware tools - and the underlying principle would be the same. It's about understanding the strengths and weaknesses, pros and cons, as well as the functionality and quality of the product.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 17, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> This is the underlying point about _system matters_ to me. I believe @hawkeyefan made a car comparison earlier, which is pretty apt. Many people don't necessarily care too much about the car - myself included - apart from the fact that it works, it's affordable, it's the right color, and it suits their daily needs (i.e., getting to work, room for family, etc.). Obviously the design and make matters, but it's an important to recognize that your Mini Cooper is not designed for off-road wilderness treks, hauling massive cargo, or top speed acceleration and handling. Automobiles are designed for different things.




Yes, automobiles are designed for different things. And yet ...

If there is a need for a family automobile in the United States, your best bet is a minivan. That is  perfectly designed family hauler. Despite the fact that this is so amazingly-well designed for the task, families no longer buy them. At best, they buy SUVs, which are compromised in terms of space in comparison. 

For that matter, look at the large numbers of pickup trucks in the US. I mean, sure, maybe Jake needs help moving this weekend. But the sheer number of massive, heavy-duty pickup trucks (especially in some areas of the country) seems to outnumber, by vast margins, the use-case for them. The number one selling vehicle in the United States last year was the Ford F-Series truck. Number 2? Chevy Silverado. 3? Ram Pickup. 

If I choose to drive a manual early-2000 German convertible roadster as my daily driver, I am not doing so because it was designed to be the best at that task. In fact, I'd say that in terms of comfort, reliability, technology, and efficiency, it is not a very good choice at all. But because I rank fun and driving experience as my top goals, it would be my go-to. 

The automobile market argues for precisely the opposite of what you are saying. It shows exactly how disparate preferences in multiple areas are more important than a singular focus on how a design for a specific task outweighs all other considerations. More importantly, much like an old man yelling at clouds, I can't scream at the people that they are wrong for buying SUVs or Pickup Trucks for their daily drives to work and shopping; just like they can't yell at me for loving stick shifts and ICE even though I am fully aware of EVs.

Well, people can and do yell at each other, but it doesn't change those opinions. 

Again, for the underlying point (yes, there is a difference between an ICE and an EV, horsepower does matter, if you want to offroad for real- you need to change out a lot of your vehicle incl. the gearing ratios and the undercarriage, ec.) it is a truism to say that mechanics of the car you drive matters; but it is no less true to observe that people happily buy and use cars and saying that they are using it wrong, or that they should be driving something else (that they don't want to) is rarely a successful method of persusasion.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 17, 2021)

The argument that quality is inherently subjective seems unfeasible to me, both in terms of general quality and also in terms of quality related to a specific gaming task. Some systems are objectively better written, tighter, and contain less wobbly bits than others. In terms of specific tasks, I think it's trivially obvious that some systems do some types of games better than others mostly because, save the generic systems, games are designed with a particular gaming task in mind.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Feb 17, 2021)

TheSword said:


> Yes, but game systems are usually not simple binary systems. They have pros and cons. I’m amazed that you think everything can be reduced down to good or bad.



*THIS IS A STRAWMAN COMING FROM YOU.  IT IS, SO FAR AS I CAN TELL ONLY YOU TALKING ABOUT A SINGLE AXIS OF GOOD/BAD. NOW PLEASE STOP.*

Things can be good _at things_. They can be bad at them. And these things can match what you want, or they can be a mismatch.

To use an example from up the thread, Blades in the Dark is good _at Leverage style heists._ No one is saying it's the perfect game for a gear and detail focused dungeon crawl. You, personally, @TheSword seem to think that because that's not the game you want to play this is some sort of rebuttal to Blades being good at Leverage-style heists. It is, so far as I can tell, only you that even _wants _to reduce games into both good and bad.

But I trust that even you would agree that F.A.T.A.L. was an objectively bad game both in terms of what it does and in terms of whether what it does matches its claimed goal of being "realistic and historically/mythically accurate". Do you, @TheSword genuinely and sincerely believe that it is impossible to say that FATAL is a bad game?


----------



## TheSword (Feb 17, 2021)

Neonchameleon said:


> *THIS IS A STRAWMAN COMING FROM YOU.  IT IS, SO FAR AS I CAN TELL ONLY YOU TALKING ABOUT A SINGLE AXIS OF GOOD/BAD. NOW PLEASE STOP.*
> 
> Things can be good _at things_. They can be bad at them. And these things can match what you want, or they can be a mismatch.
> 
> ...



To be honest I don’t appreciate the block capitals and bold. Can you moderate your tone please, or disengage from me. I’m replying politely to you, to try and explain.

A particular system will have multiple good and bad elements and the value each person puts on these will determine how people rank it for the task at hand. They will be able to compare overall though. Action resolution may be important to you, the way wealth works in the system may not. 

It’s a single axis determined by many different subjective judgments on its qualities that will vary person to person. I think I was pretty explicit in that regard. When I say I think X game is better than Y, that’s personal to me. It doesn’t mean that’s the same for everyone. It won’t be based on a single mechanic or other.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 17, 2021)

With respect, if someone can’t help but smuggle in their own subjective preferences and is therefore incapable of evaluating an RPG based solely on the execution of its design imperatives, that doesn’t say anything about the game itself. That’s the reviewers problem (and it would be clear bo matter what they were reviewing).

I neither like nor play 5e D&D. But it’s abundantly clear what it’s design imperatives were:

* Court as much of the lapsed OSR as possible while simultaneously courting as many lapsed 3.x players as possible.

* Run an unprecedented “open playtest” with surveys (that push toward a particular design) and a roughly “on-display” (but not transparent) iterative process that alleges to incorporate the data from those (slanted) surveys. This will be a massive advertising and good-faith coup.

* Embrace the storytelling zeitgeist of the late 80s and 90s that 2e embraced up through 3.x and the Pathfinder Adventure Path model.

* Draft a Basic version of the game that superficially harkens to Basic D&D.

* Make the game extremely amenable to GM Force/Illusionism and Adventure Paths so (a) casual players are easily on-boarded by allowing them to participate passively in a meta plot and (b) more active players can feel like they’re driving play when they’re mostly being railroaded by GMs deft at including non-metaplot sensitive aspects of players’ input into elaborate theatricality and Illusionism.

* Make the texts and the game nostalgic and as familiar and as functional at Hexcrawling and Sandboxing as Expert/RC/AD&D.

* Reign in spellcasters from their 3.x zenith and throttle up Fighters from their 3.x nadir.

* Embrace the DIY and Heterogeneity spirits of yore by advertising those principles while intentionally neither fastening down nor deeply encoding a significant swathe of the ruleset. 

++++++++

I mean. It’s trivial to conclude that the entire iterative, advertising, and finished product of D&D 5e overwhelmingly did what it set out to do.

As a cultural phenomenon it’s brilliantly conceived and objectively successful.

As a game it’s objectively successful.

This is coming from someone who doesn’t like the game holistically at all and who  likes only a few aspects of its constituent parts (I spoke about those during the playtest phase and I feel the same way today).

The exact same thing can be done for Blades in the Dark (but I won’t do because I’m already long on word count) whether one likes the design imperatives and finished product or not!


----------



## Neonchameleon (Feb 17, 2021)

TheSword said:


> To be honest I don’t appreciate the block capitals and bold. Can you moderate your tone please, or disengage from me. I’m replying politely to you, to try and explain.
> 
> A particular system will have multiple good and bad elements and the value each person puts on these will determine how people rank it for the task at hand. They will be able to compare overall though. Action resolution may be important to you, the way wealth works in the system may not.
> 
> It’s a single axis determined by many different subjective judgments on its qualities that will vary person to person. I think I was pretty explicit in that regard. When I say I think X game is better than Y, that’s personal to me. It doesn’t mean that’s the same for everyone. It won’t be based on a single mechanic or other.



Thank you for at least trying to reply to me - although I still feel the frustration that lead to the block capitals because you appear to be coming from a perspective that is different from almost everyone else in the thread, attributing your own position to them, and then blaming them for the problems with your own position.

When you claim "_It’s a single axis determined by many different subjective judgments_" this is something coming from you personally and that explicitly contradicts what you are replying to. It does not bear any resemblance to I think anyone else in this thread. I know that rather using the single axis scale you use I use at least a three axis scale, with the main axes being:

Does this game set out to do something interesting?
Does it do it well?
Is it something I want to use and if so when?
Dread, with its Jenga tower, is a good example of something I consider desirable and that does it well - but is normally not something I want to use unless I'm pulling out a one-shot game either as a filler or for Halloween. Because I do not (unlike you, seemingly) use a single axis scale, Dread has a place on my bookshelf but doesn't often come out.

And sometimes it can be based on a single mechanic. A good example would be the notorious attempt to play I think it was Phoenix Command among one of my groups (I wasn't there for that session). Apparently they gave up after spending an hour and a half resolving two gunshots. It was a dealbreaker for a game selling itself on realistic gun combat.

But all your comments about "_you think everything can be reduced down to good or bad_" are based on putting things on a single axis. You appear to be the only person in the thread who does this. Almost everyone else I can see is instead saying "What is this good at and when is it appropriate to use" because we do not try to reduce everything down to a single axis the way you have just said you do.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 17, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> Incidentally Rob Donoghue, one of the creators/writers for Fate, actually has "gotten pissy with people" who believe that Fate can do anything precisely because (1) _system matters_ and (2) the Fate system is not appropriate for running every type of game.
> 
> 
> This is the underlying point about _system matters_ to me. I believe @hawkeyefan made a car comparison earlier, which is pretty apt. Many people don't necessarily care too much about the car - myself included - apart from the fact that it works, it's affordable, it's the right color, and it suits their daily needs (i.e., getting to work, room for family, etc.). Obviously the design and make matters, but it's an important to recognize that your Mini Cooper is not designed for off-road wilderness treks, hauling massive cargo, or top speed acceleration and handling. Automobiles are designed for different things. Can you go off-road, haul cargo, or accelerate to high speeds with your Mini Cooper? Sure, but if you want do any of these things regularly (and safely) without breaking-down your car, then you would potentially be better buying something else than a Mini Cooper.
> ...




I mean, we’ve focused entirely on aesthetics or functional matters with the car analogy. 

If we start looking at safety, or fuel usage and emissions and the like, then what matters is going to begin to be even clearer.

Not that there are safety or environmental concerns in gaming, generally speaking. Although the topic of x-carda and safe topics may come up, and there’s always the concern of physical books and deforestation...so maybe some parallels. 



Snarf Zagyg said:


> Again, for the underlying point (yes, there is a difference between an ICE and an EV, horsepower does matter, if you want to offroad for real- you need to change out a lot of your vehicle incl. the gearing ratios and the undercarriage, ec.) it is a truism to say that mechanics of the car you drive matters; but it is no less true to observe that people happily buy and use cars and saying that they are using it wrong, or that they should be driving something else (that they don't want to) is rarely a successful method of persusasion.




Sure. But what happens when someone says “hey, what kind of vehicle should I get if I want to X?”

Now, I realize that’s not really what happened here. But if someone posted on a auto enthusiast forum (I suppose these are a thing? Maybe? Probably.) that “Any car will do!” I’d expect there to be a lot of pushback. 

Especially given that the forum is not really for those with casual interest in the topic, but instead for folks that are fairly invested in it. 

“I know you guys love cars, but they’re really all the same when you get down to it. They get you from point A to point B.” 

To drop the analogy, I get that for some folks, this may be true. They have a game that works for their needs and they’re happy with it. That’s great. But I don’t think that when one of the most prominent figures in the industry makes a statement about how game systems matter that we should call out for the resulting discussion to be shut down.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 17, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> I mean, we’ve focused entirely on aesthetics or functional matters with the car analogy.
> 
> If we start looking at safety, or fuel usage and emissions and the like, then what matters is going to begin to be even clearer.
> 
> ...



I'm a "car goes from A to B?  Good," person, in general. But given that, if I need to move something large, I call my friend with a truck.


----------



## TheSword (Feb 17, 2021)

Neonchameleon said:


> Thank you for at least trying to reply to me - although I still feel the frustration that lead to the block capitals because you appear to be coming from a perspective that is different from almost everyone else in the thread, attributing your own position to them, and then blaming them for the problems with your own position.
> 
> When you claim "_It’s a single axis determined by many different subjective judgments_" this is something coming from you personally and that explicitly contradicts what you are replying to. It does not bear any resemblance to I think anyone else in this thread. I know that rather using the single axis scale you use I use at least a three axis scale, with the main axes being:
> 
> ...



Well as a lifelong holder of minority opinions I’m ok with that. I genuinely don’t think people make decisions based on three axis models. They like one element so nudge it one way at, then don’t like another so judge it another way. Multiple axis models still end up falling somewhere on a single axis when it comes to deciding appropriateness for a task.

The reality is the multiple axis model you’re discussing could have dozen of axis. Does it do it well could itself be broken down into multiple different considerations. Character generation, action resolution, encounter building. These could all have very different view points.

On the other hand, only really the second of those axis is relevent (with all its multiple permutations) for assessing the kind of question we’re asking. If you’re not interested in the aims you won’t even get into the question. Decision to use a system will be based predominantly on the second axis you describe unless circumstances change. Time isn’t really relevent to whether a system works for you or not.

That said. It’s all a way to reach a value judgement and I’m sure on one way is as good as another. In either way a person still has to weigh up the value of different axis and reach an overall conclusion.


----------



## prabe (Feb 17, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> But what happens when someone says “hey, what kind of vehicle should I get if I want to X?”
> 
> Now, I realize that’s not really what happened here. But if someone posted on a auto enthusiast forum (I suppose these are a thing? Maybe? Probably.) that “Any car will do!” I’d expect there to be a lot of pushback.
> 
> ...



It's been a while, but I remember reading a piece in a car magazine wherein the various editors picked a vehicle they would want as their only car, and it was interesting seeing where they were willing to compromise and where they weren't (and how that was different for each contributor).


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 17, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Again, for the underlying point (yes, there is a difference between an ICE and an EV, horsepower does matter, if you want to offroad for real- you need to change out a lot of your vehicle incl. the gearing ratios and the undercarriage, ec.) it is a truism to say that mechanics of the car you drive matters; but it is no less true to observe that people happily buy and use cars and saying that they are using it wrong, or that they should be driving something else (that they don't want to) is rarely a successful method of persusasion.



This is all true.  And yet, there's also nothing wrong with pointing out that a person's aesthetic preferences might be hindering them from getting greater utility from other options.  Like, there's nothing wrong with me pointing out to you that your Mini Cooper is a terrible choice to go off-roading with, and you're probably going to break your car.  The argument of "Yea, but I've always driven Mini Coopers, and I really like the way they handle and feel" is both true and yet pointless.  

There's also the greater point that we're posting on RPG forum, and we generally assume here that people are open to advice and constructive discussion.  It's also true that there a LOT of RPGs out there, and it's unlikely that most posters are familiar with even a majority of them, due to the overwhelming prevalence of D&D.  Saying, "Hey, if you want to run a horror game on a space station, maybe the Alien RPG or Cthulhu Dark is a better choice than D&D 5e" is something you say because you think there's a pretty good chance that the poster hasn't considered those other options.  Maybe they have considered them and discarded them, but making a few posts explaining the relative virtues is just being a helpful poster.  Obviously you don't want to be a d*ck about it, but I don't think most people here go that extreme in their advocacy for various games.


----------



## TheSword (Feb 17, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> I mean, we’ve focused entirely on aesthetics or functional matters with the car analogy.
> 
> If we start looking at safety, or fuel usage and emissions and the like, then what matters is going to begin to be even clearer.
> 
> ...



They will almost certainly get a dozen different opinions though, from people who all think different things are more important than others.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Feb 17, 2021)

TheSword said:


> Well as a lifelong holder of minority opinions I’m ok with that. I genuinely don’t think people make decisions based on three axis models. They like one element so nudge it one way at, then don’t like another so judge it another way. Multiple axis models still end up falling somewhere on a single axis when it comes to deciding appropriateness for a task.
> 
> The reality is the multiple axis model you’re discussing could have dozen of axis. Does it do it well could itself be broken down into multiple different considerations. Character generation, action resolution, encounter building. These could all have very different view points.
> 
> ...



_If _I were to only use a single axis I would only bother to keep one game on my shelves. I do not. _If _I were to only use a single axis I would only play or run one game. I do not. And _if _in real life I were to only use a single axis I would only use one screwdriver in my toolbox and one kitchen knife. I do not. 

And no, it isn't only the second axis that is relevant. I listed those axes because they are _all _relevant even to a conversation like this. Is what a game tries to do relevant? Assuredly yes. My Life With Master is an excellent and influential RPG - but for 99.99% of games it is entirely the wrong tool for the job. And I'll gladly run D&D 4e for one of my groups and Apocalypse World for another - but would not run either Apocalypse World for the first group or 4e for the second because they are very different groups of players with very different interests.

I further do not believe that even you use only a single axis unless you, if given the choice, have the same meal every time. After all if you're only using a single axis one meal must be "the best". 

I believe that you might have decided that one RPG is the best for you - but any time you read someone who explicitly uses more than one RPG then they are obviously using more than one axis. And accusing them of thinking there is a best is a misunderstanding - repeatedly doing so is a strawman.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 17, 2021)

prabe said:


> It's been a while, but I remember reading a piece in a car magazine wherein the various editors picked a vehicle they would want as their only car, and it was interesting seeing where they were willing to compromise and where they weren't (and how that was different for each contributor).




Exactly. That's always going to be the situation, right? I mean, there's no perfect car. There's no perfect game. If A is important to you, then you may pick one that does A really well....even if it doesn't do B all too well. 



TheSword said:


> They will almost certainly get a dozen different opinions though, from people who all think different things are more important than others.




Yeah, of course. But hopefully, folks offer the reasons for their thinking, and you can take all that into consideration, and you can realize what it is that people prioritize. Then you can think about what it is that you prioritize, and then you can make your own decision, hopefully more informed than you had been before hand. 

I mean "you" in the general "anyone" sense, of course.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 17, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> Sure. But what happens when someone says “hey, what kind of vehicle should I get if I want to X?”
> 
> *Now, I realize that’s not really what happened here. But if someone posted on a auto enthusiast forum (I suppose these are a thing? Maybe? Probably.) that “Any car will do!” I’d expect there to be a lot of pushback.*
> 
> ...




Oh, there are . There certainly are care enthusiast forums!

But here's the thing, and I can speak from experience. You will get incredibly disparate opinions as to what matters. From car enthusiasts.

They can, and will, agree on certain things- like the horsepower of the vehicle. But the sheer number of opinions you can get as to what is the proper vehicle if you want to do "X" will be staggering. 

The factors that people use to determine what matters is incredibly idiosyncratic. For that matter, reasonable people can disagree about very specific things; if you want a really fun time, try going to a car enthusiast forum and having a discussion about German, Japanese, and American reliability, repair costs, and engineering in general across brands. 

Everything from styling to function will vary depending on the people you talk to and their preferences. There is no single solution, even for people incredibly knowledgeable about the topic. 

(If you want to see something fun on a regular basis, there is a weekly column on a website called Jalopnik where the writers offer their suggestions for a used vehicle for someone who writes in ... and the solutions cannot be more different.)


----------



## prabe (Feb 17, 2021)

TheSword said:


> They will almost certainly get a dozen different opinions though, from people who all think different things are more important than others.



Which is, unsurprisingly, not entirely dissimilar to what happens when you talk to experienced gamers about different systems. Some people come to the gaming table wanting (or at least willing) to decide what sort of story is most-likely to emerge from play, and choose a game they feel is best-suited to that. Some people come to the gaming table wanting (or at least willing) to have the type of story that will emerge from play, emerge from play, and choose a game that is less tightly focused on one type of story. Some people are better than others at keeping multiple systems in their head at the same time. Some people are more likely than others to dive deeply into a single system at a time. All of these are mostly goods, arguably; they're just different goods that probably cannot all live inside the same person or be served by the same games.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 17, 2021)

prabe said:


> It's been a while, but I remember reading a piece in a car magazine wherein the various editors picked a vehicle they would want as their only car, and it was interesting seeing where they were willing to compromise and where they weren't (and how that was different for each contributor).



IMO, the conversation seems to have an odd call and response between (1) the car design matters and (2) yeah, but people have their own preferences and can use their car as they feel like as if (2) was somehow being ignored or argued against as being relevant to the discussion in (1). Of course people have their own preferences and places where they draw the line. Some won't drive stick-shift. Some one may want an impractical luxury car. Some have a sentimental connection to a brand or make of a car. Some people would really like two convenient cupholders while driving.

Similarly in TTRPGs: Some people HATE roll-under systems. Some people dislike systems where the GM doesn't roll. Some LOVE dice pools. But IMHO these are points in favor of system matters. A game is a gestalt of its constituent parts and any of these parts could be a deal breaker or a tolerable "necessary evil" but that does not somehow disprove the gestalt of the system and how it impacts the game experience.


----------



## TheSword (Feb 17, 2021)

Neonchameleon said:


> _If _I were to only use a single axis I would only bother to keep one game on my shelves. I do not. _If _I were to only use a single axis I would only play or run one game. I do not. And _if _in real life I were to only use a single axis I would only use one screwdriver in my toolbox and one kitchen knife. I do not.



If you want different things at different time you might play different games.


Neonchameleon said:


> I further do not believe that even you use only a single axis unless you, if given the choice, have the same meal every time. After all if you're only using a single axis one meal must be "the best".
> 
> I believe that you might have decided that one RPG is the best for you - but any time you read someone who explicitly uses more than one RPG then they are obviously using more than one axis. And accusing them of thinking there is a best is a misunderstanding - repeatedly doing so is a strawman.
> If you want different things at different time you might play different games.



I play different systems. Not sure where you get the idea that I only play D&D comes from. I value them for different tasks. However at that task I pick I can put them on a spectrum. That’s why I’m saying working out whether you’re interested in the idea has already be determined when working out the task.

Tonight’s dinner isn’t a roleplaying system. There are considerably less variables to determine. How hungry am I, how expensive is it, how long do I have to prepare it and how much do I like it. That’s pretty much it.

Now a roleplaying system will have dozens of variables and at that point multiple axis become too unhelpful. This is just my point of view.


----------



## prabe (Feb 17, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> IMO, the conversation seems to have an odd call and response between (1) the car design matters and (2) yeah, but people have their own preferences and can use their car as they feel like as if (2) was somehow being ignored or argued against as being relevant to the discussion in (1). Of course people have their own preferences and places where they draw the line. Some won't drive stick-shift. Some one may want an impractical luxury car. Some have a sentimental connection to a brand or make of a car. Some people would really like two convenient cupholders while driving.
> 
> Similarly in TTRPGs: Some people HATE roll-under systems. Some people dislike systems where the GM doesn't roll. Some LOVE dice polls. But IMHO these are points in favor of system matters. A game is a gestalt of its constituent parts and any of these parts could be a deal breaker or a tolerable "necessary evil" but that does not somehow disprove the gestalt of the system and how it impacts the game experience.



I was remembering something from probably the mid-late 1990s--I'm old--but I can see an online conversation going about the way you describe.


----------



## TheSword (Feb 17, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> IMO, the conversation seems to have an odd call and response between (1) the car design matters and (2) yeah, but people have their own preferences and can use their car as they feel like as if (2) was somehow being ignored or argued against as being relevant to the discussion in (1). Of course people have their own preferences and places where they draw the line. Some won't drive stick-shift. Some one may want an impractical luxury car. Some have a sentimental connection to a brand or make of a car. Some people would really like two convenient cupholders while driving.
> 
> Similarly in TTRPGs: Some people HATE roll-under systems. Some people dislike systems where the GM doesn't roll. Some LOVE dice polls. But IMHO these are points in favor of system matters. A game is a gestalt of its constituent parts and any of these parts could be a deal breaker or a tolerable "necessary evil" but that does not somehow disprove the gestalt of the system and how it impacts the game experience.



You are right. It doesn’t disprove it, because there is nothing that can be proven or disproven in that situation. It all just comes down to what works for a given individual/table.

To be clear I’m not saying system doesn’t matter. Just that teasing out what will work for a given individual is like deciding what is the best recipe of a dish. It’s gonna depend.


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 17, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Everything from styling to function will vary depending on the people you talk to and their preferences. There is no single solution, even for people incredibly knowledgeable about the topic.



I feel like this is kind of circling the much broader question:  "If no one can agree on what matters, does that mean nothing actually matters?"  Like, if we all have different preferences on what games work best for us, does that mean system doesn't matter?  

I'd personally argue the opposite, that the fact that we all have disparate preferences means that those differences between games matters quite a bit.  But I can see where one could draw the opposite conclusion.


----------



## prabe (Feb 17, 2021)

TwoSix said:


> I feel like this is kind of circling the much broader question:  "If no one can agree on what matters, does that mean nothing actually matters?"  Like, if we all have different preferences on what games work best for us, does that mean system doesn't matter?
> 
> I'd personally argue the opposite, that the fact that we all have disparate preferences means that those differences between games matters quite a bit.  But I can see where one could draw the opposite conclusion.



I think maybe you're looking at "different things matter differently to different people." Applies to cars and to TRPGs.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Feb 17, 2021)

TheSword said:


> If you want different things at different time you might play different games.
> 
> I play different systems. Not sure where you get the idea that I only play D&D comes from. I value them for different tasks. However at that task I pick I can put them on a spectrum. That’s why I’m saying working out whether you’re interested in the idea has already be determined when working out the task.



But the time you do that is emphatically not when discussing them on message boards. It's when you've taken the information available in to run _this _game in specific which includes what the timescale is and who the players will be.

And no, your last sentence isn't correct. I, like many on this board, am interested in _game design _as well as in play_._ A good game doing something I don't want done still has a quality and a usefulness even if I never intend to run or play it.


TheSword said:


> Tonight’s dinner isn’t a roleplaying system. There are considerably less variables to determine. How hungry am I, how expensive is it, how long do I have to prepare it and how much do I like it. That’s pretty much it.



So ... because there are fewer variables you make the decision _more _complex?


TheSword said:


> Now a roleplaying system will have dozens of variables and at that point multiple axis become too unhelpful. This is just my point of view.



If multiple axes are unhelpful _then how in the name of the little black pig is a single axis helpful? _Especially when talking about games.


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 17, 2021)

prabe said:


> I think maybe you're looking at "different things matter differently to different people." Applies to cars and to TRPGs.



Sure, but does that mean "system matters" or "system doesn't matter"?  I'm attempting to circle back to what this thread is nominally about (which isn't cars).


----------



## Neonchameleon (Feb 17, 2021)

TheSword said:


> You are right. It doesn’t disprove it, because there is nothing that can be proven or disproven in that situation. It all just comes down to what works for a given individual/table.
> 
> To be clear I’m not saying system doesn’t matter. Just that teasing out what will work for a given individual is like deciding what is the best recipe of a dish. It’s gonna depend.



On the other hand I'm a relatively experienced GM who sometimes plays with randos off the internet and has run games for multiple groups because friends have asked me to. It doesn't all "just come down to what works for a given individual/table" so much as picking the right game for the right group is a skill. 

If I know that of a group sitting at the table one of the players is allergic to peanuts and another completely loves hot food both are going to impact my cooking.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 17, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Oh, there are . There certainly are care enthusiast forums!
> 
> But here's the thing, and I can speak from experience. You will get incredibly disparate opinions as to what matters. From car enthusiasts.
> 
> ...




So then I'm not sure what your point is. There are multiple opinions, so we shouldn't hear them? I would think it's the case where there is largely one prevailing opinion where no discussion would be required. "It's bad to stomp on puppies!"

I'm kidding around about the puppies, of course, but I am genuinely trying to understand your point. 

If we try to loop back to the intent of the phrase "System matters" in the sense that Peterson seems to have meant in his essay, then I think he's saying that the rules and processes you use will influence the experience you have. Do you disagree with that?


----------



## prabe (Feb 17, 2021)

TwoSix said:


> Sure, but does that mean "system matters" or "system doesn't matter"?



I think it means "both" and "it depends."

Obviously, to someone who wants a specific type of story to emerge from play, and wants to play a game made to generate that type of story, system matters a lot. They want to use BitD to tell Leverage-esque heist stories, and Dread to tell looming inevitable doom horror stories (as I understand Dread, anyway), and OSR or actual old D&D to do dungeoncrawls.

To someone who wants the type of story (as well as the story itself) to emerge from play, it probably doesn't matter anything like as much. They pick a game they know well, and they run that for whatever types of story come up.

Now, there might still be reasons for either someone to pick one system over another. Maybe one wants a more-lethal combat system; maybe one doesn't care much for character classes; maybe one prefers dice pools or role-under or some sort of averaging dice or whatever. One can obviously go with mechanics one finds amenable, regardless of whether one is looking for a game tightly focused on one type of story or not.


----------



## TheSword (Feb 17, 2021)

Neonchameleon said:


> So ... because there are fewer variables you make the decision _more _complex?



Not sure how you reached this conclusion. It’s simpler I made that clear.


Neonchameleon said:


> If multiple axes are unhelpful _then how in the name of the little black pig is a single axis helpful? _Especially when talking about games.



Have you every tried to plot multiple axis? I can manage 4 if I have enough sheets of paper. Mathematicians could figure more I’m sure but that’s beyond me. 

If I’m looking at a gym membership it’s easy. I plot cost vs useful services and pick. Either the greatest cost/benefit or the highest services I can afford if price isn’t a problem.

Try doing that when there are dozens of competing factors. Exactly as has been described for a car. You have to move to a sliding scale nudging up or down the scale dependent on whether you value something.


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 17, 2021)

If I had to make a cogent argument for the "System doesn't matter" perspective, it would be this.  

"The heart of RPGing is based on negotiation between the players as to the fictional state of the characters and their environment.  All any system does is codify expectations to remove the need to negotiate certain states in the story.  As such, any game can be used for any narrative by simply removing rules that codify those expectations and moving back to negotiation between participants."


----------



## TheSword (Feb 17, 2021)

Neonchameleon said:


> ... It doesn't all "just come down to what works for a given individual/table"...
> 
> ...If I know that of a group sitting at the table one of the players is allergic to peanuts and another completely loves hot food both are going to impact my cooking.



You pick the game to suit the group... because every group is different and will get on with different elements differently.


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 17, 2021)

TheSword said:


> You pick the game to suit the group... because every group is different and will get on with different elements differently.



In other words, the system matters because you pick different systems for different groups of players.


----------



## prabe (Feb 17, 2021)

TheSword said:


> You pick the game to suit the group... because every group is different and will get on with different elements differently.



Or if it's a longstanding group you try new systems on like clothes. Something fits, or it doesn't.

(A different approach, I think both are plausibly correct.)


----------



## prabe (Feb 17, 2021)

TwoSix said:


> In other words, the system matters because you pick different systems for different groups of players.



I'm on record that the people around the table matter at least as much as the printed/published rules.


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 17, 2021)

prabe said:


> I'm on record that the people around the table matter at least as much as the printed/published rules.



I don't think anyone on either side would argue differently.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 17, 2021)

@TheSword - Picking an RPG isn't an exercise in math. I'm perfectly capable of thinking about which game I want based on more than one axis though, and I'm really not sure why you seem so keen to make that a prohibitively difficult task. I also think that your contention that there are dozens of competing axes involved here is at least a little spurious. If you know what you want to run there aren't dozens of things to consider unless you're trying to assume a baseline of 'every system you know makes the initial list' which doesn't really pass the laugh test for me. Once I have a goal, or a specific game task, or desired genre emulation, the list is already smaller. 

It's not that I disagree with you about there possibly being a significant subjective component here, but I think that the level of subjectivity is probably directionally proportional to a lack of deeper understanding of or experience with the systems you are choosing from. Once you really know a system you move past a single axis of interpretation. Sure, you can collapse a deeper reading of X, Y, and Z into a single 'I like it' or 'I don't', but that really doesn't make it a single axis exercise.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 17, 2021)

TheSword said:


> You are right. It doesn’t disprove it, because there is nothing that can be proven or disproven in that situation. It all just comes down to what works for a given individual/table.
> 
> To be clear I’m not saying system doesn’t matter. Just that teasing out what will work for a given individual is like deciding what is the best recipe of a dish. It’s gonna depend.



I still kinda disagree with the idea that "there is nothing that can be proven or disproven in that situation," as we still can talk about what a product is designed for and whether it succeeds in that regard, or other elements that are independent of personal preferences. Regardless of whether we have a personal preference for a given car or whether leather seats are a deal breaker, we know what the car was designed for and we can discuss the quality of the product designed to be a sports car.

Regardless of personal preferences or make/break points, certain products are clearly designed to do certain things better than other available products while some products are designed to do similar things albeit in different ways.


----------



## prabe (Feb 17, 2021)

TwoSix said:


> I don't think anyone on either side would argue differently.



There have seemed to be people arguing that system trumps all. I might be misunderstanding them, or they might be staking out a more extreme position than they actually hold (which is a thing that happens in arguments, especially on the Internet).


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 17, 2021)

TwoSix said:


> I feel like this is kind of circling the much broader question:  "If no one can agree on what matters, does that mean nothing actually matters?"




TwoSix: Are these the Nazis, Snarf?

Snarf: No, TwoSix, these men are nihilists. There's nothing to be afraid of.


...things (objective, real things) matter. Maybe not to a nihilist, even one who enjoys the occasional lingonberry pancake, but they do make a difference.

People make decisions based around these differences. Let's take two different examples:

1. Coke and Sprite. There is an objective difference between these two things. Whether you discuss measurables (such as nutritional information, or caffeine) or taste, they are objectively different. But the preference will be different. Even if you make a statement based on an objective difference ("You should drink Sprite because it is a citrus-y beverage, and therefore more refreshing"; "You should drink Coca Cola in the morning because the caffeine will get you going!").

2. New MacBooks and PC Laptops. The new macbooks have a newly-designed chip that blows the doors off of the intel chips in terms of performance and heat. That is an objective measure. That makes a difference. However, people can (and do) still have a difference in preference based on everything from "The PC/Windows laptop runs games I want to play," to "I just don't want to run MacOS, and I never will." For the second, imagine the person is a computer user that only runs basic web browsing and word processing from their laptop, so you could probably even go so far as to state that the new macbook would be better for their uses ... and it still might not matter to them. 

It's an intersection of subjective and objective that seems to get many people confused. People describe a game system and say that it is better for X use case (which is a difficult thing to do, but let's assume it is correct). They may even give specific examples of how their play group uses that system and how well it works for them. The trouble is when they generalize that use case to other cases- in other words, for other people. Other people not only have different preferences, but they also have different groups (and those groups contain other people with different preferences). 

The elevation of the system over the people at the table is what I often find baffling. I don't think it is too much to say that "players matter" or "preferences matter." But that's also a truism, isn't it? It all matters.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Feb 17, 2021)

TheSword said:


> Have you every tried to plot multiple axis? I can manage 4 if I have enough sheets of paper. Mathematicians could figure more I’m sure but that’s beyond me.



Which is why I use three important ones. It lets me prioritise multiple important things without all the flaws you outline of narrowing it down to one axis.


TheSword said:


> You pick the game to suit the group... because every group is different and will get on with different elements differently.



Yes. Which is why I need more than a simple single-axis scale for the game.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 17, 2021)

prabe said:


> I'm on record that the people around the table matter at least as much as the printed/published rules.




Ugh not me. The people at my table stink! Who cares about them?

Again, I'm obviously kidding.....but let's take your comment and then apply it to the discussion here. 

"Participants don't matter."

I don't know if anyone here would actually argue in support of that statement. Any game will obviously be shaped by the people who play in it. Which is why I'm kind of surprised that anyone would argue in support of the system not mattering.


----------



## TheSword (Feb 17, 2021)

The groups preferences mattering (which seemed to take a lot of effort to acknowledge) is why when a person suggests X game is much better for Y theme, the listener doesn’t automatically agree. It isn’t just due to their starter system conditioning them.

To be fair I only got back into this thread when that point was disputed.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 17, 2021)

prabe said:


> There have seemed to be people arguing that system trumps all. I might be misunderstanding them, or they might be staking out a more extreme position than they actually hold (which is a thing that happens in arguments, especially on the Internet).



I... don't know who that would be.  I haven't seen anything said that resembles this.


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 17, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> It's an intersection of subjective and objective that seems to get many people confused. People describe a game system and say that it is better for X use case (which is a difficult thing to do, but let's assume it is correct). They may even give specific examples of how their play group uses that system and how well it works for them. The trouble is when they generalize that use case to other cases- in other words, for other people. Other people not only have different preferences, but they also have different groups (and those groups contain other people with different preferences).



Yea, but I think the disconnect I'm seeing is that I feel there's nothing wrong with making recommendations to people based on your own experiences.

Like, if I tell someone I really enjoyed the food at this seafood restaurant over the weekend, and they should give it a shot if they're in the city sometime.  If they tell me, "Yea, I really don't like seafood", than that should end the conversation and everyone should be happy.  I'm not wrong for thinking the restaurant is great and recommending it to people, and they're not wrong for not liking seafood and thus not wanting to follow my recommendation.

I haven't seen anyway in this thread saying something like "Seafood restaurants are objectively the best restaurant, and you should only eat there."  Likewise, I haven't seen anyone say "Don't ever recommend seafood, because some people are allergic."  Which is good, because those would both be objectively bad statements to make!

The only thing I've really seen on this thread is people saying "If you really like seafood, you should try this new restaurant rather than ordering another Filet O' Fish from McDonalds."  The fact that some people might still like their Filet O' Fish doesn't mean you can't say "I think the food at that new restaurant is objectively better than a Filet O' Fish."


----------



## prabe (Feb 17, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> I... don't know who that would be.  I haven't seen anything said that resembles this.



Then feel free to take that as an admission I've misunderstood someone (or possibly several someones).


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 17, 2021)

TwoSix said:


> If I had to make a cogent argument for the "System doesn't matter" perspective, it would be this.
> 
> "The heart of RPGing is based on negotiation between the players as to the fictional state of the characters and their environment.  All any system does is codify expectations to remove the need to negotiate certain states in the story.  As such, any game can be used for any narrative by simply removing rules that codify those expectations and moving back to negotiation between participants."



That's still System Matters, though. You've just replaced a published system with an unpublished one. GM Decides or The Group Decides are absolutely systems (or at least components of a system).


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 17, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> I... don't know who that would be.  I haven't seen anything said that resembles this.



Personally, based on the fact that most of the participants in this thread have been posting here for a long time, I have no trouble saying I think none of those posters believe system trumps all.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 17, 2021)

heretic888 said:


> That's still System Matters, though. You've just replaced a published system with an unpublished one. GM Decides or The Group Decides are absolutely systems (or at least components of a system).



Yes, I feel this this is often missed in these discussions.  Also, the argument that you can do something in D&D by changing things is a tacit admission that system matters -- you've had to change it to do the thing.  Often, though, this 'change' is really just ignore the system, which, again, goes back to system matters.


----------



## prabe (Feb 17, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> Ugh not me. The people at my table stink! Who cares about them?
> 
> Again, I'm obviously kidding.....but let's take your comment and then apply it to the discussion here.
> 
> ...



As I said, there have seemed to be people who've said, at least, that the system is more important than the people at the table--which isn't the same thing as saying the people don't matter at all. I don't think anyone is really saying the rules of the game don't matter, just that they don't matter more than the people at the table.


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 17, 2021)

heretic888 said:


> That's still System Matters, though. You've just replaced a published system with an unpublished one. GM Decides or The Group Decides are absolutely systems (or at least components of a system).



I'd disagree; I would say it's analogous to "The type of car doesn't matter, as long as it goes from A to B".  RPGs are all about negotiation of a fiction, just like cars are all about locomotion.


----------



## Campbell (Feb 17, 2021)

From my perspective the difference between roleplaying games, at least one that are not as similar as say D&D, Pathfinder, Shadow of the Demon Lord and Warhammer is not like the difference between different types of automobiles where one is a comparable replacement. It's more like Risk and Monopoly or Poker and Spades. Playing different games provides an experience that you will never reliably experience in somebody's D&D game without altering the process of play. 

Modern D&D is not some middle point. It's a specific game experience that is finely tuned to deliver compelling play to people that want that experience. That's a lot of people in modern D&D's case.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 17, 2021)

prabe said:


> As I said, there have seemed to be people who've said, at least, that the system is more important than the people at the table--which isn't the same thing as saying the people don't matter at all. I don't think anyone is really saying the rules of the game don't matter, just that they don't matter more than the people at the table.



This is a slightly different formulation, but I still think it's a misunderstanding.  How can system matter more than the people choosing which system to play?  This gives system an agency it doesn't have, or removes agency from the participants.  System cannot matter more than the people at the table because the people at the table choose the system.  Power over a thing, and all that.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 17, 2021)

TwoSix said:


> I'd disagree; I would say it's analogous to "The type of car doesn't matter, as long as it goes from A to B".  RPGs are all about negotiation of a fiction, just like cars are all about locomotion.



No, it would be more like saying that cars don't matter because there's lots of ways to get from A to B.  In yours, you've explicitly selected a car, which matters.


----------



## TheSword (Feb 17, 2021)

I think there are some elements of systems that seem to matter a great deal to some people that are utterly irrelevant to other people.

How many stats you have, how you calculate starting stats, what dice you roll, how you heal, and a pretty staggering number of things we argue about on here that most be people just let go over their head.

One of the reasons I think D&D 5e has done well is for a lot of these areas they’ve said... “we don’t care what method you use. Pick what you like.” Thats powerful segmented marketing there.

In other words it doesn’t matter what system you use... as long as you’re having fun.


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 17, 2021)

TwoSix said:


> I'd disagree; I would say it's analogous to "The type of car doesn't matter, as long as it goes from A to B".  RPGs are all about negotiation of a fiction, just like cars are all about locomotion.



Yes, but not all negotiation of fiction is GM Decides or Group Decides. Even these two systems alone are vastly different and produce profoundly different experiences at the table in regards to agency, distribution of authority, expectations of play, and so on.

In this case, its more like taking a taxi vs carpooling with some buddies to get somewhere. Even if its the same vehicle and we're going to the same place, the ride there is going to be a totally different experience!


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 17, 2021)

TwoSix said:


> Personally, based on the fact that most of the participants in this thread have been posting here for a long time, I have no trouble saying I think none of those posters believe system trumps all.




System, System über alles,
Über alles in das Spiel!


----------



## hawkeyefan (Feb 17, 2021)

prabe said:


> As I said, there have seemed to be people who've said, at least, that the system is more important than the people at the table--which isn't the same thing as saying the people don't matter at all. I don't think anyone is really saying the rules of the game don't matter, just that they don't matter more than the people at the table.




I don't know if anyone said that, but maybe? I mean, I think the question of which is more important might be interesting, but of course it will vary. I think both are important and both will impact the game. 

If I had to pick one in some hypothetical gun to the head situation, then I'd probably say that the participants are more important.....but even then, I might pause just long enough that my captor would shoot, and the answer would remain a mystery.


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 17, 2021)

heretic888 said:


> Yes, but not all negotiation of fiction is GM Decides or Group Decides. Even these two systems alone are vastly different and produce profoundly different experiences at the table in regards to agency, distribution of authority, expectations of play, and so on.
> 
> In this case, its more like taking a taxi vs carpooling with some buddies to get somewhere. Even if its the same vehicle and we're going to the same place, the ride there is going to be a totally different experience!



I absolutely agree.  That's probably why I can't present the System doesn't matter argument with any coherence, because I don't agree with it.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 17, 2021)

TheSword said:


> I think there are some elements of systems that seem to matter a great deal to some people that are utterly irrelevant to other people.
> 
> How many stats you have, how you calculate starting stats, what dice you roll, how you heal, and a pretty staggering number of things we argue about on here that most be people just let go over their head.



IME, these things utterly don't matter up until the point where they utterly matter more than anything. Often, again IME, it happens when people experience TTRPG "culture shock." Then it's funny how those things that were "utterly irrelevant" become "utterly relevant" when faced with an alien experience. 



TheSword said:


> One of the reasons I think D&D 5e has done well is for a lot of these areas they’ve said... “we don’t care what method you use. Pick what you like.” Thats powerful segmented marketing there.
> 
> In other words it doesn’t matter what system you use... as long as you’re having fun.



Ummm... I think that's more accurately "It doesn't matter what system you use... as long as you're using 5e." You're still buying and driving the car they made regardless of whether you choose to drive it with the windows up or down, where you point the fans, or how hot/cold you set the heater/AC.


----------



## TheSword (Feb 17, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> IME, these things utterly don't matter up until the point where they utterly matter more than anything. Often, again IME, it happens when people experience TTRPG "culture shock." Then it's funny how those things that were "utterly irrelevant" become "utterly relevant" when faced with an alien experience.
> 
> 
> Ummm... I think that's more accurately "It doesn't matter what system you use... as long as you're using 5e." You're still buying and driving the car they made regardless of whether you choose to drive it with the windows up or down, where you point the fans, or how hot/cold you set the heater/AC.



True.

I prefer to think of it as one of these.


----------



## Campbell (Feb 17, 2021)

TheSword said:


> If I’m looking at a gym membership it’s easy. I plot cost vs useful services and pick. Either the greatest cost/benefit or the highest services I can afford if price isn’t a problem.




This suggests only a familiarity with commercial big box gyms where you might have a couple power racks, assorted weight machines, and a bunch of cardio equipment. Speaking as someone who has been a member of power lifting gyms, yoga studios, body building gyms, mixed martial arts gyms, and even in a moment of weakness a CrossFit gym there are so many variables I consider when choosing a gym or gyms to be part of. Stuff like key access, what kind of coaching is available, the culture of the gym, busy times, what sort of equipment is available, if I'm going to be bothered by personal trainers, opportunities to get involved in competitions, whether you are actually allowed to exert yourself, etc.  A gym is far more than its amenities.

Oops. Not a fitness forum.


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 17, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> Ummm... I think that's more accurately "It doesn't matter what system you use... as long as you're using 5e." You're still buying and driving the car they made regardless of whether you choose to drive it with the windows up or down, where you point the fans, or how hot/cold you set the heater/AC.



Don't forget the classic "System doesn't matter, until the system has metagame currency or Fortune-in-the-middle mechanics or some other technique I'm not familiar with.  Then system is really important!"


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 17, 2021)

Campbell said:


> Oops. Not a fitness forum.



Well, we already knew we weren't a car forum, what's one more?


----------



## Campbell (Feb 17, 2021)

From my personal perspective roleplaying games are an alchemy. Take these specific people at this specific time playing this specific game with this specific situation playing these specific characters. Change any of these elements and the alchemy changes substantially in any game worth playing (in my opinion of course). Trying to say one matters more than the others is to fundamentally miss the point that all are essential to how things turn out. Alter any and the entire experience is altered.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 17, 2021)

TwoSix said:


> Yea, but I think the disconnect I'm seeing is that I feel there's nothing wrong with making recommendations to people based on your own experiences.
> 
> Like, if I tell someone I really enjoyed the food at this seafood restaurant over the weekend, and they should give it a shot if they're in the city sometime.  If they tell me, "Yea, I really don't like seafood", than that should end the conversation and everyone should be happy.  I'm not wrong for thinking the restaurant is great and recommending it to people, and they're not wrong for not liking seafood and thus not wanting to follow my recommendation.
> 
> ...




Great example! Maybe this will help ... I mean, probably not, given the topic and the thread, but I'll give it a try. 

Abe loves the seafood at Ye Olde Maine Lobster Shack ("LS"). Abe knows that his friend, Bob, love seafood, too. 

Abe recommends LS to Bob. Bob goes to LS. A few days later, Abe asks Bob about the restaurant.

"I didn't like it," says Bob. "I mean, it was fine. It just wasn't great for me." 

At this point, Abe doesn't know what to do. Of course it was great seafood! And Bob likes seafood! And since Abe is sure of his own preferences, and since, um, seafood matters (?), the problem ... has to be Bob, right?

So Abe goes through a whole laundry list of issues- maybe Bob didn't really eat at the restaurant and is lying about it because Bob only eats at Red Lobster and Bob just loves him some strawmen. Maybe Bob ate the seafood wrong, and was eating the lobster shell instead of the sweet, sweet succulent lobster meat? Maybe Bob was paying attention to the wrong things- the service, or the atmosphere, or all the things that don't matter when it comes to seafood? 

Or maybe, even though they both love seafood, and they both want good seafood, they can have a reasonable disagreement about the same thing. 

When you look at what people say, you see that there is widespread agreement on the weak version of the statement that the rules ("system") matters. No reasonable person disagrees that there is a difference between a diceless game and a game with dice, or even whether small mechanical tweaks in a game (such as a combat game that allows for more misses, but fewer hp, as opposed to more hits, but more hps) can make a game "play" differently. I think that these effects can be echoed in a number of different ways- for example, the amount of rules a game devotes to a particular "area" often means that this area will get more attention in the game (this is the "D&D has more combat because it has more rules about combat" corollary). 

To me, that's a truism in the same way that, "The players at the table matter."

It's when people get arguing and screaming strawman at each other and making claims about how particular systems are the best way or a better way to model certain types of fiction that things seem to get wonky. Those tend to be more prescriptive statements. Because that tends to overlook the dynamics of people and tables, not to mention preferences.

None of this should shortcut discussions about preferences, or recommendations about TTRPGs that are fun to play or particularly well-suited for doing X, Y, or Z. But sometimes Abe and Bob might both like seafood, and just not agree on Ye Olde Maine Lobster Shack. It doesn't make either of them wrong, or evil, or hating seafood. Human preferences are a heckuva thing; I mean, look just at the 5e threads and you will see an enormous number of opinions of people that are arguing over the same features in the same game, and whether those features are good or bad.


----------



## PsyzhranV2 (Feb 17, 2021)

This Twitter thread is one of the better write-ups on "System Matters" that I've seen recently:


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 17, 2021)

Cavegirl does good analysis.


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 17, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> None of this should shortcut discussions about preferences, or recommendations about TTRPGs that are fun to play or particularly well-suited for doing X, Y, or Z. But sometimes Abe and Bob might both like seafood, and just not agree on Ye Olde Maine Lobster Shack. It doesn't make either of them wrong, or evil, or hating seafood. Human preferences are a heckuva thing; I mean, look just at the 5e threads and you will see an enormous number of opinions of people that are arguing over the same features in the same game, and whether those features are good or bad.



Obviously Abe and Bob should have eaten at the Cheesecake Factory.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 17, 2021)

TwoSix said:


> Obviously Abe and Bob should have eaten at the Cheesecake Factory.




I'm too young to die and to old to eat off the kid's menu. What a stupid age I am!


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 17, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> I'm too young to die and to old to eat off the kid's menu. What a stupid age I am!



If I had to guess, I'd put you somewhere between Applebee's and the Olive Garden.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 17, 2021)

Fenris-77 said:


> If I had to guess, I'd put you somewhere between Applebee's and the Olive Garden.




The greatest tragedy of America today is that there is an entire generation growing up that will never know the thrill of Bennigan's Ultimate Nachos.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 17, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> The greatest tragedy of America today is that there is an entire generation growing up that will never know the thrill of Bennigan's Ultimate Nachos.



I have the same feeling about Mothers Pizza. A staple of my childhood and perfect for any occasion slightly more important that warranting a trip to McDicks.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 17, 2021)

Fenris-77 said:


> I have the same feeling about Mothers Pizza. A staple of my childhood and perfect for any occasion slightly more important that warranting a trip to McDicks.




Try explaining to a whippersnapper today that dining at the Pizza Hut was an EVENT. An EVENT! That was practically fine dining.


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 17, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Try explaining to a whippersnapper today that dining at the Pizza Hut was an EVENT. An EVENT! That was practically fine dining.



Especially if you went with your free coupons from reading lots of books.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 17, 2021)

Snarf Zagyg said:


> Try explaining to a whippersnapper today that dining at the Pizza Hut was an EVENT. An EVENT! That was practically fine dining.



Yeah man, definitely not a _hey, where do want to go for lunch?_ kinda deal. Going out for dinner was a* big* thing. For those truly earth shaking events like your Aunt's successful hip replacement there was the fabled Cracker Barrel.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 17, 2021)

Fenris-77 said:


> Yeah man, definitely not a _hey, where do want to go for lunch?_ kinda deal. Going out for dinner was a* big* thing. For those truly earth shaking events like your Aunt's successful hip replacement there was the fabled Cracker Barrel.



Hey, for me it was Quincy's.  Man, I do miss those yeast rolls.  Then, after awhile, Cracker Barrel was the deal.  Now I have a chophouse ($80+ a plate) a little less than a mile away, alongside other higher end options.  When I bought my house, it was labeled "rural."  Progress!


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 17, 2021)

TwoSix said:


> Don't forget the classic "System doesn't matter, until the system has metagame currency or Fortune-in-the-middle mechanics or some other technique I'm not familiar with.  Then system is really important!"



Well we don't have to worry about those systems mattering at all because the presence of any metagame mechanics means that it's not a "True RPG" anyway. 



Snarf Zagyg said:


> I'm too young to die and to old to eat off the kid's menu. What a stupid age I am!



Get a hold of yourself, man! You are never too old to order off the kid's menu!


----------



## pemerton (Feb 17, 2021)

TheSword said:


> Do you understand the point though that all game systems are good or bad in relation to other systems?



_Better _and _worse _are comparatives. That's why I used them, upthread:



pemerton said:


> I will assert, unequivocally, that Cthulhu Dark is a better RPG system both _in general_, and _for the special case of Mythos RPGing_, than CoC. Yet as you note the latter is far more widely played.
> 
> I will also assert, but a bit more hesitantly as I know I'm disagreeing with Greg Stafford, that Prince Valiant is a better system both _in general_, and _for the special case of Arthurian/knightly romance RPGing_, than Pendragon.




You then posted:


TheSword said:


> I think part of the problem is how reductive the argument gets.
> 
> It is often claimed that X game is better at Y because of Z.




I don't understand how my claim is reductive, but your judgement that D&D would not be good for gritty futuristic sci-fi horror is not.



TheSword said:


> There is a spectrum between ‘*does exactly what you want*’ and ‘*does nothing of what you want*’ and that no roleplaying game does _nothing of what you want_ because they all at least have a player character even if nothing else about the game is right. All we debate is where on the spectrum a particular game system falls.



So the argument against _system matters _is that _every RPG is a RPG_? Who do you think hadn't noticed that tautology? How does it have any bearing on judgements of which systems are better or worse than others?


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 17, 2021)

heretic888 said:


> Yes, but not all negotiation of fiction is GM Decides or Group Decides. Even these two systems alone are vastly different and produce profoundly different experiences at the table in regards to agency, distribution of authority, expectations of play, and so on.
> 
> In this case, its more like taking a taxi vs carpooling with some buddies to get somewhere. Even if its the same vehicle and we're going to the same place, the ride there is going to be a totally different experience!




This is a really good exchange by you and TwoSix. I’m enjoying it. But I figured enough is enough. Time to enlighten you guys.

What you guys are missing is this.

It’s more like eating tacos and shoveling snow.

Everyone likes snow. But no one likes shoveling it.

Everyone likes tacos. But no one likes cleaning up their messy hands.

So shovel tacos.

You get the tacos. You get the nice crunch of the snow. You don’t get messy hands. You get exercise. And everyone is all “holy crap that person has an entire shovel worth of tacos...I want to be that person.” So you get status increase. Someone probably films it and puts it on social media and it goes viral. Now you’ve got tacos and shovels for life and and endorsement package. You invest that in tacos and shovels and the positive feedback loop runs away netting you $47,342,675,345. You use your wealth to influence govt to impose a regime of tacos and shovels and snowball fights on the populace. Everyone is happy and adores you. You ruled the world. Win Con achieved. Start over.

It’s really straight-forward. I’m surprised you guys didn’t think of this yet.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 17, 2021)

turnip_farmer said:


> Intelligence would be used for piloting ships and operating computers. You'd gain a bonus to your hit roll with blasters if you were proficient in blasters. I don't think there's any such thing as an archery fighting style in 5e.
> 
> Not trying to claim that 5e would be a great system for science-fiction, but the fact that you would need to replace proficiencies referring to medieval stuff with proficiencies referring to sci-fi stuff is obviously not a stumbling block.



According to p 25 of the Basic PDF, one of the choices for a fighter's fighting style is *Archery*: _You gain a +2 bonus to attack rolls you make with
ranged weapons._

And now D&D does sci-fi because I can graft on new categories of weapon, new proficiency rules, etc? I think everyone here can write up a simple RPG that will do that. By those lights Classic Traveller can do dungeon investigation because I can add swords and flails to the weapon list and use INT checks for detecting traps.

Is _this_ supposed to be the argument that system doesn't matter, and will have no effect on the play experience?


----------



## TheSword (Feb 17, 2021)

pemerton said:


> _Better _and _worse _are comparatives. That's why I used them, upthread:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Kinda over this argument. But essentially I’m saying the argument is reductive because it generally picks a few traits identified by the poster and ignores everything else.


----------



## TheSword (Feb 17, 2021)

pemerton said:


> According to p 25 of the Basic PDF, one of the choices for a fighter's fighting style is *Archery*: _You gain a +2 bonus to attack rolls you make with
> ranged weapons._
> 
> And now D&D does sci-fi because I can graft on new categories of weapon, new proficiency rules, etc? I think everyone here can write up a simple RPG that will do that. By those lights Classic Traveller can do dungeon investigation because I can add swords and flails to the weapon list and use INT checks for detecting traps.
> ...



No. Only that it was possible to run a game, however unsatisfactory, with that system.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 17, 2021)

@pemerton -  at what point is Starfinder essentially D&D does sci fi? I feel like you're making a different point, something about using the 5E PHB to play Sci Fi, but I thought I'd ask.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 17, 2021)

prabe said:


> Which is, unsurprisingly, not entirely dissimilar to what happens when you talk to experienced gamers about different systems. Some people come to the gaming table wanting (or at least willing) to decide what sort of story is most-likely to emerge from play, and choose a game they feel is best-suited to that. Some people come to the gaming table wanting (or at least willing) to have the type of story that will emerge from play, emerge from play, and choose a game that is less tightly focused on one type of story. Some people are better than others at keeping multiple systems in their head at the same time. Some people are more likely than others to dive deeply into a single system at a time. All of these are mostly goods, arguably; they're just different goods that probably cannot all live inside the same person or be served by the same games.



But to the extent that all this is true, is it a reason to suppose that system doesn't matter?


----------



## pemerton (Feb 17, 2021)

TwoSix said:


> If I had to make a cogent argument for the "System doesn't matter" perspective, it would be this.
> 
> "The heart of RPGing is based on negotiation between the players as to the fictional state of the characters and their environment.  All any system does is codify expectations to remove the need to negotiate certain states in the story.  As such, *any game can be used for any narrative by simply removing rules that codify those expectations and moving back to negotiation between participants."*



I've bolded the bit that seems to me to refute the assertion that _system doesn't matter_.


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 17, 2021)

pemerton said:


> I've bolded the bit that seems to me to refute the assertion that _system doesn't matter_.



For what it's worth, I agree.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 17, 2021)

TheSword said:


> No. Only that it was possible to run a game, however unsatisfactory, with that system.



It is not possible to run a gritty futuristic sci-fi horror game with 5e, though.  To do so, you have to make changes to the system or outright ignore the system adhoc.  5e cannot do gritty futuristic sci-fi horror.  Some other system you've _modified _from 5e might do it, to varying degrees of success.


----------



## TheSword (Feb 17, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> It is not possible to run a gritty futuristic sci-fi horror game with 5e, though.  To do so, you have to make changes to the system or outright ignore the system adhoc.  5e cannot do gritty futuristic sci-fi horror.  Some other system you've _modified _from 5e might do it, to varying degrees of success.



Thank you for making my point.
That people make sweeping factually incorrect statements like this.


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 17, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> It is not possible to run a gritty futuristic sci-fi horror game with 5e, though.  To do so, you have to make changes to the system or outright ignore the system adhoc.  5e cannot do gritty futuristic sci-fi horror.  Some other system you've _modified _from 5e might do it, to varying degrees of success.



Hmm.  I think that raises some interesting questions.  I don't think anyone would define adding a single subclass, or a race, or some optional rules, as somehow changing the game into being "not 5e".  But how far can we change a system until it's not recognizable as itself?  Are the changes purely limited to resolution mechanics, or does a change in implied setting or genre also make a game "no longer X"?


----------



## PsyzhranV2 (Feb 17, 2021)

TheSword said:


> Thank you for making my point.
> That people make sweeping factually incorrect statements like this.



The point is that 5e _out of the box_ can't do that gritty sci-fi.

And quite frankly, when it comes to comparing the merits of different RPGs against each other, presenting the ways in which people might homebrew modifications to a system as a counter-argument against the system itself being well or ill-suited to certain genres and styles of play is pointless at best, intentional obfuscation at worst.

Or to put it another way,


----------



## pemerton (Feb 17, 2021)

hawkeyefan said:


> I'm kind of surprised that anyone would argue in support of the system not mattering.



I'm not. But I'm still waiting for anyone in this thread to actually own the argument.

Here it is:

_System doesn't matter _because the essence of RPGing is undergoing the experience of the GM telling you what is going on in your character's immediate environment, and then telling you what happens when your PC tries to act on that environment. And this can be done regardless of the details of the PC sheet in front of you, and regardless of the details of the action resolution framework.​
When RPGing is looked at this way, the main function of a PC sheet that says (say) _Tracking +4_ or _Carousing-2_ is not to provide input into a resolution framework but rather is to express the essence of the character, which the GM then uses as a guide to (i) moving the "spotlight" and (ii) deciding what happens.

That's not to say that the odd die roll isn't called for, but the function of those rolls is more likely to be to provide memorable moments of hijinks, like when the player whose sheet says _Juggling +10_ rolls a natural one and so drops all the juggling balls over the tavern floor, leading one of the serving staff to fall over it spilling drinks onto the surly dwarf. On the approach I'm describing, the _fundamentals _of what happens won't be determined by dice rolls.

Depending on the group, combat may be an exception to what I've just described, in which case you may see an exception to the view that _system doesn't matter _manifesting as a view about the merits of hit points vs debuff/death spiral systems etc.

I think that the approach to RPGing I've described above is pretty common, and is the basis - among those whose approach it is - for asserting that system doesn't matter.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 17, 2021)

prabe said:


> As I said, there have seemed to be people who've said, at least, that the system is more important than the people at the table--which isn't the same thing as saying the people don't matter at all. I don't think anyone is really saying the rules of the game don't matter, just that they don't matter more than the people at the table.



I think it is in this thread that I made the point that, _played with the same group_ (ie my group), Classic Traveller produces a different experience from Prince Valiant, which produces a different experience from Cortex+ Heroic, etc.

That doesn't provide any evidence about the relative importance of participants as a cause of the overall experience. It does show that system matters (because the participants are a constant factor). It was a response to this post:


TheSword said:


> For the record I think system does matter. Just nowhere near as much as adventure design/story and group.
> 
> It has an influence, I just don’t believe it makes as much difference as the designers of those systems would like to believe



I'm not quite sure how TheSword knows what it is that various RPG designers belief about the degree of effect their systems have. What I think is that _system clearly matters, because it changes my play experience_, and that _adventure design/story_ is itself an artefact of a particular sort of RPGing system, and so positing it as an influence on play is already positing a system as mattering.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 17, 2021)

TheSword said:


> I think there are some elements of systems that seem to matter a great deal to some people that are utterly irrelevant to other people.
> 
> How many stats you have, how you calculate starting stats, what dice you roll, how you heal, and a pretty staggering number of things we argue about on here that most be people just let go over their head.
> 
> One of the reasons I think D&D 5e has done well is for a lot of these areas they’ve said... “we don’t care what method you use. Pick what you like.”



If these are the sorts of discussions that you think are at the core of _system matters _that does help explain why you think it doesn't much matter.

This is why @Campbell described D&D, PF and WHFRP as _basically the same system_ for the purposes of the discussion about whether or not system matters.

That's not to say that there can't be serious discussion about healing rules in an adventure-oriented RPG. But that discussions will be about the relationship between the passage of ingame time and pacing at the table; how consequences are carried from scene-to-scene; whether ingame time is a player-side resource; who gets to frame scenes; etc. Relatively few discussions on ENworld about healing in D&D address these central questions.

If they were addressed, I think the answer that would emerge would be that the best healing system for D&D as it is generally played would combine aspects of 4e D&D with the core of Prince Valiant: from 4e D&D we would take the idea that healing resources (surges, some powers) are part of what the players are expected to work with during a given episode (be that _an encounter_ or _a delve_); from Prince Valiant we would recognise that, when all the pacing and passage of time and off-screen events between episodes is controlled by the GM, there is no need for any healing rule beyond _it takes as long as the GM says it does_.

Part of what encourages the thought that system _doesn't _matter is the inclusion, in some RPGs, of stuff that _looks like rules/system _but really isn't. For instance, D&D 5e seems to have rules that imply that the passage of ingame time between episodes is a player resource (because it takes so-and-so many hours to have a long rest, which then recharges other resources including spell load-out, which can then be used by players to do stuff). But because there is nothing in the system that constrains GM decision-making around what happens between episodes, it's really not a player resource at all and all those rules about the passage of between-episode time are fundamentally window-dressing.

(I'm going to @hawkeyefan here, because this elaborates on my reply above about why some RPGers might rationally argue that system doesn't matter.)


----------



## prabe (Feb 17, 2021)

pemerton said:


> But to the extent that all this is true, is it a reason to suppose that system doesn't matter?



The quoted bit wasn't so much about system not mattering (or mattering) as it was about why one might intentionally choose a system someone else thinks of as inferior. Specifically, the reasons I gave are pretty much my reasons for choosing to play D&D 5E--because the "system matters" conversation almost always seems to be about what D&D can and cannot do. About the only thing missing is that I wanted to game with new people, and I wanted to game at a FLGS, so the most-popular game (which I happen to like well enough) is, I think, a reasonable and rational choice.


pemerton said:


> I think it is in this thread that I made the point that, _played with the same group_ (ie my group), Classic Traveller produces a different experience from Prince Valiant, which produces a different experience from Cortex+ Heroic, etc.



And I have had the experience of playing different games with the same people at the table, and the experience around the table being roughly the same. I don't know that they were quite so different from each other as the games you played, but they were pretty far-ranging. Part of it was that the guy who was the almost-constant GM at that table had ... tendencies, so the fiction tended to end up in similar shapes and places. Do I think your experience, as you described it, is possible? I absolutely do, and I don't doubt for a moment you experienced it.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Feb 17, 2021)

Campbell said:


> Modern D&D is not some middle point. It's a specific game experience that is finely tuned to deliver compelling play to people that want that experience. That's a lot of people in modern D&D's case.



I'm going to only disagree on a technicality here. I'd call 5e intentionally pretty loosely tuned. It's _intended _to be a game that's driftable and intended to be a game that's never a bad one for anything you'd want to do something you'd use D&D for. The goal is breadth rather than focus.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 17, 2021)

Fenris-77 said:


> @pemerton -  at what point is Starfinder essentially D&D does sci fi? I feel like you're making a different point, something about using the 5E PHB to play Sci Fi, but I thought I'd ask.



I don't really know Starfinder.

But saying that Rolemaster can be used to play sci-fi because it can be developed into Spacemaster isn't, to me, a very compelling argument that RM - as in, the books Arms Law, Character Law and Spell Law that one gets in the box labelled Rolemaster - can be used to play sci-fi.

And my attitude towards _The 5e PHB and DMG can be used to play a gritty, futuristic sci-fi horror game _is much the same. I just don't think it's true. Or to the extent that it is true, it's because we can freeform the game using the six stats on the sheets and a d20. In which case it's not actually _using D&D _in any meaningful sense that I can see.


----------



## prabe (Feb 17, 2021)

Neonchameleon said:


> I'm going to only disagree on a technicality here. I'd call 5e intentionally pretty loosely tuned. It's _intended _to be a game that's driftable and intended to be a game that's never a bad one for anything you'd want to do something you'd use D&D for. The goal is breadth rather than focus.



I agree. While it's pretty clear that the intended use case for D&D 5E is hardcover adventures, you can do other things with it. Since the hardcover adventures literally never make sense to me when I try to read them, I do ... other things.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 17, 2021)

TwoSix said:


> Hmm.  I think that raises some interesting questions.  I don't think anyone would define adding a single subclass, or a race, or some optional rules, as somehow changing the game into being "not 5e".  But how far can we change a system until it's not recognizable as itself?  Are the changes purely limited to resolution mechanics, or does a change in implied setting or genre also make a game "no longer X"?



Answering this question is mostly going to be about stipulation than discovery, I think.

But that doesn't mean there are no meaningful claims in the neighbourhood. And @Campbell has already made one, probably the most important one, in this thread: _for many "system matters" purposes_, the original PF, D&D 3E, D&D 2nd ed AD&D, D&D 5e, and WHFRP are the same system. They all use basically the same allocation of responsibilities, the same processes of play and produce broadly similar play experiences as a result.

_In this sense_, 5e D&D can be used to play gritty futuristic sci-fi horror - all the grit will come from GM narration and framing, with the action resolution mechanics just coming along for the ride. But in this case it won't be true that 5e D&D is particularly bad at it, either.

But because @TheSword said that 5e D&D _would _be bad at it, I took the focus to be less on those underlying fundamentals and more on the existence, within the system, of appropriately coloured game elements. And once we focus on those then I agree with @Ovinomancer - 5e D&D doesn't have them. You have to write them yourself.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 17, 2021)

prabe said:


> The quoted bit wasn't so much about system not mattering (or mattering) as it was about why one might intentionally choose a system someone else thinks of as inferior. Specifically, the reasons I gave are pretty much my reasons for choosing to play D&D 5E--because the "system matters" conversation almost always seems to be about what D&D can and cannot do. About the only thing missing is that I wanted to game with new people, and I wanted to game at a FLGS, so the most-popular game (which I happen to like well enough) is, I think, a reasonable and rational choice.
> 
> And I have had the experience of playing different games with the same people at the table, and the experience around the table being roughly the same. I don't know that they were quite so different from each other as the games you played, but they were pretty far-ranging. Part of it was that the guy who was the almost-constant GM at that table had ... tendencies, so the fiction tended to end up in similar shapes and places. Do I think your experience, as you described it, is possible? I absolutely do, and I don't doubt for a moment you experienced it.



Well, yes, conversation _here _usually ends up talking about D&D, because this is the largest D&D fan site on the web.  It's nearly inevitable that it's part of the discussion, because even if it's initially avoided in a discussion, it gets brought in by someone who's mostly or only familiar with D&D (fan site!) because that's the vast majority of posters.  It's basically inevitable.  

There have, still, been a few discussions about the relative merits of other systems in comparison, at least for a bit until D&D intrudes.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 17, 2021)

TheSword said:


> Thank you for making my point.
> That people make sweeping factually incorrect statements like this.



Saying this without evidence is just handwaving.

Show me, using the PHB, how I would run a computer hacking against a pervasive, mind altering AI consciousness in VR.

Show me, using the PHB, how I would run a multi-ship space battle between multiple factions, including being boarded by eldritch horrors from beyond the rim of the galaxy.

Show me, using the PHB, what the time to travel to the next core system over is.

These are things that are pretty common in a gritty futuristic sci-fi horror game, and yet you cannot do this in 5e without iterating whole sets of mechanics or just ignoring the system and winging it.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 17, 2021)

TwoSix said:


> Hmm.  I think that raises some interesting questions.  I don't think anyone would define adding a single subclass, or a race, or some optional rules, as somehow changing the game into being "not 5e".  But how far can we change a system until it's not recognizable as itself?  Are the changes purely limited to resolution mechanics, or does a change in implied setting or genre also make a game "no longer X"?



This is an interesting question -- especially since this is the revenue stream plan from the designers (to add new things)!

I think that the main difference is that if you're iterating the rules but staying within the established genre and tone, it's just some house-rules but the same system. When, however, you're building out new mechanics, or significantly altering established ones, especially to achieve a different genre or tone feel, you've moved outside the boundaries.

As such, Starfinder is a different system from Pathfinder, even if it is very, very similar.  And AW is similar to DW, but are different systems -- they clearly evoke a different feel and are aimed to generate different styles of play.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 17, 2021)

It the difference between core mechanics and the whole game.


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 17, 2021)

pemerton said:


> _In this sense_, 5e D&D can be used to play gritty futuristic sci-fi horror - all the grit will come from GM narration and framing, with the action resolution mechanics just coming along for the ride. But in this case it won't be true that 5e D&D is particularly bad at it, either.
> 
> But because @TheSword said that 5e D&D _would _be bad at it, I took the focus to be less on those underlying fundamentals and more on the existence, within the system, of appropriately coloured game elements. And once we focus on those then I agree with @Ovinomancer - 5e D&D doesn't have them. You have to write them yourself.



I feel like "system doesn't matter" is correlated with preferences for ad-hoc GM resolution and games where the action resolution mechanics "come along for the ride", as you put it.  The methods aren't really as important as the _trappings_, the class modifications and equipment and such, which are there to give a sense of place.  

When "system matters", conversely, it's in the context of giving players more authority.  One of the main functions of RPG rules is to codify grants of authority to the players and restrict the authority of the GM.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Feb 17, 2021)

pemerton said:


> If these are the sorts of discussions that you think are at the core of _system matters _that does help explain why you think it doesn't much matter.
> 
> This is why @Campbell described D&D, PF and WHFRP as _basically the same system_ for the purposes of the discussion about whether or not system matters.



Objection: that was me. And I merely described them as very similar because they come from similar places and do fairly similar things. There are three major differences that mean although similar adventures work it's going way too far to call them basically the same system:

The character progression system is very different; D&D characters through the levelling system almost level on rails and gain skill basically uniformly. WFRP characters, through the career system, develop different focuses as they grow in experience and are much more grounded in their role in the world.
The healing system; D&D characters (in any edition) basically heal "clean" and free of consequences, even death being reversible (with respect to the Combat as Sport/Combat as War supposed dichotomy I refer to this as Combat As Paintball). WFRP characters on the other hand take long term consequences and injuries from when they get into fights, plus permanent mutations.
The (post-1e) magic system. In D&D magic is simple and reliable and will always do what you expect. WFRP 1e used a spell point system, but subsequent editions have you roll to cast spells and it's entirely possible to fail to cast your spell and entirely possible to get an accident which curdles milk or even summons a hostile demon (which may happen whether or not the roll succeeded). This means using magic is always dangerous.
This combination has a _significant _impact on e.g. how gritty the world is and all three are examples of the system mattering.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 17, 2021)

TwoSix said:


> I feel like "system doesn't matter" is correlated with preferences for ad-hoc GM resolution and games where the action resolution mechanics "come along for the ride", as you put it.  The methods aren't really as important as the _trappings_, the class modifications and equipment and such, which are there to give a sense of place.
> 
> When "system matters", conversely, it's in the context of giving players more authority.  One of the main functions of RPG rules is to codify grants of authority to the players and restrict the authority of the GM.



Yup.  I will run, and play, pretty much the same in a 5e, Pathfinder, or WHFRP game, just using some different mechanics when I, the GM, decide to use them or when I, the player, need to level up/use a power.  The actual approach to play is very similar, so I can see how, if your experience is only in these games, that the concept of "system doesn't matter" can arise -- you're mostly doing the same stuff in all of them, so it's more stage decoration.  I think this is flawed, though, in that there are significant differences in how these games articulate game priorities, but this is usually papered over or outright ignored if a given system fails to meet up with the GM's assumptions or desires.  Take a look at the threads over in 5e where people complain 5e is "easy mode" and then argue vehemently about the encounter math that has a clear assumption that they're not following.  These things are only noted when how you want to run the game isn't supported by how the game was designed to run -- and then are usually met by houserules to enforce the wanted operation.

If you step outside that narrow approach that is, admittedly, very popular, then it becomes immediately apparent that system does matter, and you learn that you should pick a system that lines up with your wants rather than a system that doesn't, but you can complain and house-rule.  Until this learning happens, though, you get the angry responses that enough house-ruling makes a favored system do whatever.  Mostly, I can lay this at the feet of the presumed knowledge -- if I've done a thing for years or decades, then surely I know what I'm talking about, and what you're saying doesn't match my understanding (which is learned), so you're clearly incorrect!  It's a hard pill to swallow, after a time, that your experience may be deep, but it's also narrow.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 17, 2021)

TwoSix said:


> Hmm.  I think that raises some interesting questions.  I don't think anyone would define adding a single subclass, or a race, or some optional rules, as somehow changing the game into being "not 5e".  But how far can we change a system until it's not recognizable as itself?  Are the changes purely limited to resolution mechanics, or does a change in implied setting or genre also make a game "no longer X"?




I mentioned in the other thread what I see as the fault line for a "hack" (which is a new game despite being in the family of games of the original):



> * Blades in the Dark isn't just a (a) core action resolution engine and (b) a set of play priorities and (c) GMing ethos. Its a game with (d) a specific setting/genre, (e) a specific Win/Loss Con. Then it has (f) a particular set of mechanics that integrate and facilitate the realization of that a - e.
> 
> So all of that a - f has to be in there for it to be BitD.
> 
> ...




So, I would say a 5e hack is when a game has (a) - (c) kindred with 5e but d - f are subtly (or more) different to create a new game.

Obviously if any of (a) - (c) are changed then you must have a new game (and not even a hack).


----------



## TheSword (Feb 17, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> Saying this without evidence is just handwaving.
> 
> Show me, using the PHB, how I would run a computer hacking against a pervasive, mind altering AI consciousness in VR.
> 
> ...



You don’t understand the point that was made. A DM could give themselves the task of running a 5e adventure on the nostromo. All 2-3 players are rogues or fighters. It runs level 1-4, no feats, 3d6 character Gen, a handful of special rules like slow healing, sanity rules, no magic, massive damage, monsters real inner as alien horrors. Tech checks are Int tests because the alien ship is beyond the technical understanding of the part. DMG future weapons but limited ammo with drops. 2e Ravenloft style encounter design. A couple of magic items representing technological items - burning hands wand = flamethrower etc.

It...is...posssible...to...run...this...campaign.

Without making up new rules, just by restricting options.

You may not think it has depth, or development opportunities or enough character options. But it is possible. You may score it a 2/10 for ahieving it’s aims, however I can legitimately call it a gritty,  sci-go, horror campaign. Saying it is impossible is really a bit daft because not much is actually impossible if you really exercise your imagination.

Now Alien RPG or star finder or another system would probably do it better I’m sure. But then we’re talking about degrees of difference. Which is a value decision and is going to depend on many dependent factors - one of which is the preferences of the players.

That’s the last time I’m going to explain the point.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 17, 2021)

TheSword said:


> You don’t understand the point that was made. A DM could give themselves the task of running a 5e adventure on the nostromo. All 2-3 players are rogues or fighters. It runs level 1-4, no feats, 3d6 character Gen, a handful of special rules like slow healing, sanity rules, no magic, massive damage, monsters real inner as alien horrors. Tech checks are Int tests because the alien ship is beyond the technical understanding of the part. DMG future weapons but limited ammo with drops. 2e Ravenloft style encounter design. A couple of magic items representing technological items - burning hands wand = flamethrower etc.
> 
> It...is...posssible...to...run...this...campaign. Without making up new rules, just be restricting options.



No, that's a D&D game in a strange setting.  It is not a gritty futuristic sci-fi horror game, it's D&D characters in space, doing D&D things.


TheSword said:


> You may not think it has depth, or development opportunities or enough character options. But it is possible. You may score it a 2/10 for ahieving it’s aims, however I can legitimately call it a gritty,  sci-go, horror campaign. Saying it is impossible is really a bit daft because not much is actually impossible if you really exercise your imagination.
> 
> Now Alien RPG or star finder or another system would probably do it better I’m sure. But then we’re talking about degrees of difference. Which is a value decision and is going to depend on many dependent factors - one of which is the preferences of the players.
> 
> That’s the last time I’m going to explain the point.



I strongly disagree it's could even be called a gritty futuristic sci-fi horror game -- it's a cardboard standee.  This cannot handle quite a lot of the things that the genre of futuristic sci-fi horror encompasses -- it is, instead, a toy example of a very narrow concept that barely fits in the space (and more as a comedy than a gritty sci-fi horror).  It's like saying that a skateboard can't be a NASCAR racecar and being told of course it can be, it's got wheels and can turn left, it's just a matter of degrees of difference.  It's a category error.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 17, 2021)

TwoSix said:


> I feel like "system doesn't matter" is correlated with preferences for ad-hoc GM resolution and games where the action resolution mechanics "come along for the ride", as you put it.  The methods aren't really as important as the _trappings_, the class modifications and equipment and such, which are there to give a sense of place.



Right. I think that your "_trappings_, the class modifications and equipment and such, which are there to give a sense of place" is pretty similar to my "the main function of a PC sheet that says (say) _Tracking +4_ or _Carousing-2_ is not to provide input into a resolution framework but rather is to express the essence of the character, which the GM then uses as a guide to (i) moving the "spotlight" and (ii) deciding what happens."

For the same point, made in another recent thread that spun off this one:



chaochou said:


> 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.



The terminology of "railroading" and "illusion" is perhaps at the harsher end of things, but the basic idea is the same: ad hoc GM resolution with the PC sheet, the trappings, as a source of colour and sign-posting that the GM has regard to.

As soon as we move to a different sort of play process - one where player decisions make a difference _beyond _the influence they might have on GM decision-making - then we start to look at how fiction is introduced, how declared actions are resolved, etc. And that's when we discover that (to use a Burning Wheel example) _Circles 2 _doesn't just send some abstract signal about how well-connected my character is that the GM might have regard to in making decisions, but rather in a quite concrete way permits me, the player, to initiate a sequence of play about meeting my (that is, my PC's) brother.

And so we see that PC build matters not in the sense of some vague discussion about class vs skill-based building, but in the sense of _establishing what authority the players are able to exercise_, and we find that resolution rules matter because they are the medium by which that authority is exercised.

Here, sblocked, is a good post from Vincent Baker that elaborates the point:



Spoiler



We collectively need to do character sheets and what they're for a whole lot better, if we want to accomplish anything. . . .

Imagine Thatcher's London. Imagine a person in Thatcher's London who has everything to lose.

_That's_ a character. That's a whole, playable, complete character. If I ask you to speak in that character's voice, you can; if I present some threat or challenge, you can tell me easily how that character will react; if I describe a morning and ask you what that character will do in it, you'll know. Take ten minutes to think and that character's as real as can be.

Character sheets are _useless_ when it comes to creating, describing, defining, realizing characters. Totally pointless, valueless, toss 'em in the recycling. A notebook is helpful for remembering things, or 3x5 cards or post-it notes, let's use those instead. Or let's use nothing at all, if we can remember what we need to remember! Probably we can.

This isn't (just) to Collin but to everybody: *I can't teach you anything useful about RPG design if you persist in thinking that mechanical character creation or the character sheet have anything to do with the character at all.* It's a misleading historical mistake to call the process and the paper "character-" anything. If you want to get anywhere, if you want to understand, if you want to create anything at all, you have to let that old error go.

So we start right here at this point: the character exists only in our minds. If we write something down about the character, it's only to remind us, to help us keep the character in our minds. The character cannot be touched by rules or game mechanics at all, under any circumstances, no exceptions. The character is pure inviolate fiction. This is fundamental and inescapable.

And from _there_ we build.

I say, "my character, this guy in Thatcher's london, who has everything to lose, he goes to his lover's flat and convinces him to keep their affair private." You say, "y'know, I don't think that his lover is inclined to keep their affair private, do you?" And I say, "no, I suppose not, but my character is desperate to convince him anyway. In fact, he brings an antique revolver with him in his jacket pocket, in case he can't."

(Look, just look: the character has no "character sheet," but he's a whole character, fully realized. I can play him effortlessly.)

How do we decide what comes true?

We can simply agree. That works great, as long as we really do just simply agree.

We could flip a coin for it. Let's do that: heads my character convinces yours to keep their secret, tails he murders him instead.

Or y'know, that's a lot to deal with. Let's have a rule: whenever a character's life is at stake, that character's player gets to call for one re-flip of the coin.

On the other hand, isn't my character's life at stake too? His wife, his kids, his position, his money, his everything? Which should have more weight between us, your character's life or my character's "life"? Shall we go best two of three, or is that setting life and "life" too equal?

How about this: we'll roll a die. If it comes up 1 or 2, your character will refuse and mine will kill him; if it comes up 3-6, your character will agree to keep the secret and (unknowingly) thereby save his life. It's unequal because my character killing yours is less to your liking than your character ruining mine's life is to mine. It's unequal to be fair to us, the _players_.

Notice that we haven't considered which is more likely at all. We probably agree that it's more likely, in fact, that your character will refuse, so my character will shoot him. But that doesn't matter - either could happen, so we roll according to what's at stake.

Also, notice that we aren't rolling to see whether your character values his life in the face of my character's gun in any way. We're rolling to see if your character agrees to keep the secret without ever knowing about the gun, or if he refuses without knowing about the gun and my character shoots and kills him.

What we have here is a resolution mechanism with no character sheet. It treats all outcomes as equal, except in cases where it's "a character dies" vs. "a character's life is radically and permanently changed." In those cases, it biases toward the latter.

See?

Let's add a wrinkle. Let's say that over the course of the whole game, each of us is allowed 10 rerolls, no questions asked. Just in case we want another shot at our preferred outcome. _Now_ we need a "character sheet," except that of course it's really a player sheet. We need to keep track of how many of our rerolls we've spent.

Let's add another wrinkle. Let's say that at the beginning of the game, we each choose a sure thing, a limited circumstance where we don't roll, but instead one or the other of us just chooses what happens. I choose "my character's children are in the scene." You choose "once per session, at my whim."

Here, this late, I've finally made a mechanical reference to the fiction of the game. I still haven't considered probabilities at all, and do you see how "my character's children are in the scene" and "once per session" are the same? They're resources for us to use, us the players, to have more control over what becomes true.

Maybe we should write them down on our player sheets too, so that if we forget or get sloppy we can call one another on it.

But so okay, that's pretty good, but how do we come to agreement about the two possible outcomes in the first place? Here's a rule: neither outcome can overreach the present capabilities of the characters involved. That makes sense; if my character didn't bring the revolver, I shouldn't be insisting upon "shoot and kill" as a possible outcome, right? Same with my character's skills and foibles as with his belongings. Like, if I establish that my character has a weak heart, that opens up some possible outcomes for us to propose; if I establish that my character is an excellent driver, that opens and closes some others.

Come to think of it, when do I get to decide if my character has access to an antique revolver, has a weak heart, is an excellent driver? Do I get to decide on the fly or do I have to declare it up front?

Either way, I should write all this stuff down on my player sheet, as I establish it. That way I know what I'm allowed to propose as possible outcomes.

See how this goes? The "character sheet" isn't about the character. Maybe - maybe - it refers to details of the character, if that's what our resolution rules care about. But either way, even if so, the "character sheet" is really a record of the _player's_ resources. "Character creation" similarly isn't how you create a character, but rather how you _the player_ establish your resources to start.

If you like, you can design your game so that the player's resources depend wholly on details of the character.

Or you can just as easily design your game so that the player's resources don't refer to details of the character at all.

Or a mix, that's easiest of all.

Whichever way, you need to establish what resources the player has to begin with, and you'll probably want to write 'em down. _That's_ what's really going on.



(Also, because I can't resist a final comment: the Cthulhu Dark PC "sheet" does exactly what it needs to - it reminds us of what the character's job is, so that the player can roll an extra die in the pool when the character tries to do something that falls within his/her field of expertise. The idea that this is an incomplete character sheet, or that it makes all characters the same, is laughable.)


----------



## TheSword (Feb 17, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> No, that's a D&D game in a strange setting.  It is not a gritty futuristic sci-fi horror game, it's D&D characters in space, doing D&D things.
> 
> I strongly disagree it's could even be called a gritty futuristic sci-fi horror game -- it's a cardboard standee.  This cannot handle quite a lot of the things that the genre of futuristic sci-fi horror encompasses -- it is, instead, a toy example of a very narrow concept that barely fits in the space (and more as a comedy than a gritty sci-fi horror).  It's like saying that a skateboard can't be a NASCAR racecar and being told of course it can be, it's got wheels and can turn left, it's just a matter of degrees of difference.  It's a category error.



Ha ha, that is the funniest argument I’ve seen in a long time. They’re all just weird settings... every one. Yes a gritty sci-fi horror campaign may well resemble d&d in a weird setting. A weird gritty sci-do, horror setting.

Incidentally - I can absolutely run the three part Harlock’s Legacy trilogy for Dark Heresy in the D&D system. Easier in 5e than any other version. All it would require is a table willing to make conscious character choices to emulate that style and run with it.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Feb 17, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> No, that's a D&D game in a strange setting.  It is not a gritty futuristic sci-fi horror game, it's D&D characters in space, doing D&D things.



A group of people trapped on a spaceship with murderhobos with magic powers? Reminds me of Aliens more than anything else.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 17, 2021)

Neonchameleon said:


> Objection: that was me.



Here're the @Campbell posts I had in mind:


Campbell said:


> The technical bits that most of us think about when we think of system/game design matter, but not a whole lot. At the end of the day Warhammer Fantasy, Numenera, Pathfinder and D&D are mostly the same game. They are about a group of fantasy adventurers going on adventures played by players who are mostly trying to solve the adventure of the day. The process of play is damn near identical. Differences in design are mostly technical. Those technical differences do matter, but not like a lot in the grand scheme of things.
> 
> However take something like Sorcerer with its kickers, players who are expected to play individual characters pursuing personal goals, and GMs who are expected to frame scenes and build NPCs that interact with that core PC personal drama. Suddenly that looks a lot different. The process of play has been dramatically upended.
> 
> That's what System Matters is all about. It's about getting away from just designing those technical bits and really devoting time to designing the process of play.





Campbell said:


> From my perspective the difference between roleplaying games, at least one that are not as similar as say D&D, Pathfinder, Shadow of the Demon Lord and Warhammer is not like the difference between different types of automobiles where one is a comparable replacement. It's more like Risk and Monopoly or Poker and Spades. Playing different games provides an experience that you will never reliably experience in somebody's D&D game without altering the process of play.
> 
> Modern D&D is not some middle point. It's a specific game experience that is finely tuned to deliver compelling play to people that want that experience. That's a lot of people in modern D&D's case.



I'm sure I read your post too, but it hasn't stuck in my mind as firmly (sorry).


----------



## Neonchameleon (Feb 17, 2021)

pemerton said:


> Here're the @Campbell posts I had in mind:
> 
> I'm sure I read your post too, but it hasn't stuck in my mind as firmly (sorry).



Fair enough and my apologies. Here was mine, commenting on similarity of design intent and of solutions found.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 17, 2021)

Neonchameleon said:


> Fair enough and my apologies. Here was mine, commenting on similarity of design intent and of solutions found.



No worries. And going back to your I see I XPed it at the time!


----------



## Jack Daniel (Feb 17, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> Saying this without evidence is just handwaving.
> 
> Show me, using the PHB, how I would run a computer hacking against a pervasive, mind altering AI consciousness in VR.
> 
> ...




That is not a compelling argument at all.

Show me, using the PHB, how I would get into a psychic duel with mystical entity on the Astral Plane.

Show me, using the PHB, how I would run ship-to-ship combat with triremes and ballistae.

Show me, using the PHB, how to travel to an Outer Plane without using a spell.

Sometimes you've just got to hand-wave, make stuff up, or create new game mechanics, even to do things that are _definitely _within the purview of D&D's genre. And for things that aren't in the presumed genre? You can re-skin. You can add. This doesn't change the _system_ you're using into a different system.

Adding a Computers (Int) skill to 5e doesn't make the game suddenly _not _5e. In fact, it's a trivial thing to do.

Using the same rules you'd normally use for airships and cannons for starships and turbolasers doesn't make the game suddenly _not _5e.

Hand-waving interstellar travel and allowing the party to reach other planets at the "speed of plot" is no different from doing the same with a sailing ship and a distant port-town. And if you're not comfortable doing that—you'd rather measure distances on a hex-map—an ocean of stars is going to be little different from an ocean of islands. If you want accurate travel times for real kinds of ships (schooners, galleys, clippers), you need to do your research. And if you want to do the same thing in a sci-fi setting, it helps to know how fast Warp 5 is (125c in TOS scale, 215c in TNG scale), how fast the _Millennium Falcon's_ hyperdrive can go (it can cross the galaxy in hours or days with proper astrogation), and the top speed of a Goa'uld Ha'tak (132,000c if you're curious).

The point is, you think 5e couldn't possibly do futuristic sci-fi horror? I say it'd be _easy_. (Feel free to move the goalposts, though.)


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 17, 2021)

TheSword said:


> Ha ha, that is the funniest argument I’ve seen in a long time. They’re all just weird settings... every one. Yes a gritty sci-fi horror campaign may well resemble d&d in a weird setting. A weird gritty sci-do, horror setting.



No, they aren't just weird settings.  This is only true if you're main approach is to wing it or force story.  If you're forcing story, then, sure, system doesn't matter as much because that's not how the game is actually being adjudicated.


TheSword said:


> Incidentally - I can absolutely run the three part Harlock’s Legacy trilogy for Dark Heresy in the D&D system. Easier in 5e than any other version. All it would require is a table willing to make conscious character choices to emulate that style and run with it.



Can you do Space Marines?  Dark Eldar Dying Sun Battleships raiding an Imperium convoy defended by Gothic-Class cruisers?  Or are you claiming that, if you limit the players to only certain selections of class/race/build that you can managed to pass with a specific adventure path?  The latter is the claim you're making, but the former are parts of that grander gritty futuristic sci-fi horror settings -- the bits 5e can't do.  What you're engaged in is called special pleading, and it's where you ignore examples that don't fit your argument and only focus on the few that do.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 17, 2021)

Jack Daniel said:


> That is not a compelling argument at all.
> 
> Show me, using the PHB, how I would get into a psychic duel with mystical entity on the Astral Plane.
> 
> ...



This is ignoring the system, or making things up.  That's not part of 5e -- it's outside of it.  You're actually arguing my point that things like this require the players to add mechanics to the system, thereby changing it.  You can, of course do this, and I've made the argument that doing so inside the genre and feel of the game and not extensively you don't end up with a new system.  However, doing this and moving from D&D to gritty futuristic sci-fi horror requires massive changes to lots of the system - it's not a small deviation, or an extrapolation from already existing things.  Your bullets above are all already present in the system, in some way, and you're asking for a change to existing features.  The ones I listed aren't at all present in the system.


Jack Daniel said:


> Adding a Computers (Int) skill to 5e doesn't make the game suddenly _not _5e. In fact, it's a trivial thing to do.



Yes, ADD.


Jack Daniel said:


> Using the same rules you'd normally use for airships and cannons for starships and turbolasers doesn't make the game suddenly _not _5e.



What rules are these?


Jack Daniel said:


> Hand-waving interstellar travel and allowing the party to reach other planets at the "speed of plot" is no different from doing the same with a sailing ship and a distant port-town. And if you're not comfortable doing that—you'd rather measure distances on a hex-map—an ocean of stars is going to be little different from an ocean of islands. If you want accurate travel times for real kinds of ships (schooners, galleys, clippers), you need to do your research. And if you want to do the same thing in a sci-fi setting, it helps to know how fast Warp 5 is (125c in TOS scale, 215c in TNG scale), how fast the _Millennium Falcon's_ hyperdrive can go (it can cross the galaxy in hours or days with proper astrogation), and the top speed of a Goa'uld Ha'tak (132,000c if you're curious).



Ignoring system.


Jack Daniel said:


> The point is, you think 5e couldn't possibly do futuristic sci-fi horror? I say it'd be _easy_. (Feel free to move the goalposts, though.)



Then, please, present an easy 5e rule change that allows for a gritty futuristic sci-fi horror game.  If you could keep the changes to under 10 pages, that'd be swell.

Claims that things are easy without actually doing them are cheap and not convincing.  What you're imagining are a few things that you have a quick solution to (one of which is "handwave") and failing to understand how the system would need to interconnect and change.

If you do find this easy, then use 5e to do the same thing that Monsterhearts does -- angsty monster melodrama that centers around adolescents discovering sexuality.  Don't just handwave it!


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 17, 2021)

So a game with no space ship rules, no space ship gear, no space ship skills and, in fact, no space-related rules at all is just 'kind of poor' at Aliens? You'll pardon me if that doesn't really cross the finish line IMO. You might get half-baked sci fi out of that, but Aliens it* isn't*. I get what you're trying to say, and in cases that are less of a stretch I'd agree, but this isn't one of those cases.


----------



## TheSword (Feb 17, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> No, they aren't just weird settings.  This is only true if you're main approach is to wing it or force story.  If you're forcing story, then, sure, system doesn't matter as much because that's not how the game is actually being adjudicated.
> 
> Can you do Space Marines?  Dark Eldar Dying Sun Battleships raiding an Imperium convoy defended by Gothic-Class cruisers?  Or are you claiming that, if you limit the players to only certain selections of class/race/build that you can managed to pass with a specific adventure path?  The latter is the claim you're making, but the former are parts of that grander gritty futuristic sci-fi horror settings -- the bits 5e can't do.  What you're engaged in is called special pleading, and it's where you ignore examples that don't fit your argument and only focus on the few that do.



I by no means need to include *everything* in a campaign for it to be a suitable campaign. The dark heresy rules had no options for space marines as PCs. I could create a space marine NPC using 5e without breaking a sweat. The rules for Star ships also weren’t present. If I needed a smaller vehicle - speeder, or gun cutter the 5e rules for vehicles enable that. If I use a star ship it’s a location.

Unfortunately with your talk of ‘forcing a story’ you are just demonstrating poor sportsmanship. You asked me to show how I would run a 5e campaign set in a gritty, sci-fi horror setting. Dark Heresy admirable fills that setting.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 17, 2021)

Jack Daniel said:


> Show me, using the PHB, how I would run ship-to-ship combat with triremes and ballistae.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Sometimes you've just got to hand-wave, make stuff up, or create new game mechanics, even to do things that are _definitely _within the purview of D&D's genre.



This is one reason why I find the purported versatility of D&D rather overrated.

In the current "Worlds of Design: War" thread there isn't a lot of discussion of fighting battles (land or naval) in D&D. Gygax's DMG had rules for the latter, but they effectively weld on a set of wargame rules that include rules for how D&D elements (like fireballs) are to be adjudicated in the wargame context.

It's perfectly possible to have a FRPG that does seamlessly handle naval battles and naval command as much as Conan-esque or Moria-esque one-on-one skirmishes. But D&D isn't really an example, though 4e gets closest I think.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Feb 17, 2021)

Fenris-77 said:


> So a game with no space ship rules, no space ship gear, no space ship skills and, in fact, no space-related rules at all is just 'kind of poor' at Aliens? You'll pardon me if that doesn't really cross the finish line IMO. You might get half-baked sci fi out of that, but Aliens it* isn't*. I get what you're trying to say, and in cases that are less of a stretch I'd agree, but this isn't one of those cases.



I brought in Aliens as a joke - intending to imply that the average D&D adventuring party would make good stand-ins for the xenomorphs.


----------



## TheSword (Feb 17, 2021)

Fenris-77 said:


> So a game with no space ship rules, no space ship gear, no space ship skills and, in fact, no space-related rules at all is just 'kind of poor' at Aliens? You'll pardon me if that doesn't really cross the finish line IMO. You might get half-baked sci fi out of that, but Aliens it* isn't*. I get what you're trying to say, and in cases that are less of a stretch I'd agree, but this isn't one of those cases.



It’s ludicrous to suggest that a setting can’t be sci-fi if it doesn’t give the PCs control over interstellar star ships. Ludicrous.

The Thing, Blade Runner, Pitch Black, Species, Terminator, Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

Absolutely ludicrous.

How much interstellar ship flying gets done by the protagoniats in Alien, Aliens or Alien 3? The drop ship... easily modeled with the vehicle rules.


----------



## Jack Daniel (Feb 17, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> Claims that things are easy without actually doing them are cheap and not convincing. What you're imagining are a few things that you have a quick solution to (one of which is "handwave") and failing to understand how the system would need to interconnect and change.
> 
> If you do find this easy, then use 5e to do the same thing that Monsterhearts does -- angsty monster melodrama that centers around adolescents discovering sexuality. Don't just handwave it!




I'm sorry, but you don't get to just handwave handwaving. Knowing when not to use any rules at all is an essential part of running _any_ RPG system effecitvely.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 17, 2021)

A bit over a year ago I ran an Alien-inspired Classic Traveller session.

Keeping in mind the points @Campbell and @Neonchameleon have made about both technical elements of system, and more fundamental/underlying processes of play, I want to try and itemise some of what was needed to make this work:

* Classic Traveller is a sci-fi game, in the sense that space, starships, astronauts, skills for dealing with technology, etc are all part of it by default.

* Classic Traveller is quite non-Star Wars in its fiction - the main weapons are firearms, the most common armour is ballistic cloth, etc, ships can travel FTL but can't cross the galaxy in hours or days, and not even in a single longer voyage. This means that the system, played in accordance with the spirit and genre that it presents, won't generate action declarations from the players that are radically out-of-context for Alien.

* Classic Traveller easily generates PCs whose main field of expertise is not fighting, and indeed who are not very impressive physically at all. And this isn't just about "fluff" descriptions - it feeds into the resolution framework. It is not hard to generate a Traveller PC who will fall down unconscious or even dead if shot; who is no match for a leopard in hand-to-hand fighting; etc. This is important for Alien because it means that there are some PCs whose players will recognise that they are no match, in combat, for the Alien. So they will have to run or call for help or something similar.

* Classic Traveller has fully integrated animal generation rules, which make it easy to mechanically stat up the Alien and put it into mechanical as well as fictional motion in the game.

* Classic Traveller gives the referee a _lot _of authority to establish the initial fiction. In the context of this particular scenario, it is easy for me as referee to decide that the abandoned ship the PCs are investigating has Aliens on board. It's also easy for me to introduce elements of the framing that give clues and establish the "feel" of the possibility of some sort of "unexpected" threat.

* Classic Traveller has pretty good rules for determining encounter surprise and encounter range which mean that, _once I decide that the PCs encounter an alien on the ship_, things move out of the realm of GM fiat and into the realm of mechanics. This allows PC expertise to factor in (eg one player had his PC spend money to train in Tactics, which gives her a benefit to avoid surprise), and generally reduces the sense of GM-choosing-to-hose-the-players.

* Classic Traveller has player-side morale rules, which would help establish some feel, but on this occasion I forgot to use them! It didn't matter because we had fleeing PCs due to rational player choice without the need for any help from the dice!​
Here's one thing which I think is crucial to Alien but doesn't really have a system element in Classic Traveller to support it: _the PCs split up_.

This was an important part of the scenario I GMed, but it wasn't generated via application of the rules. (Contrast, say, MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic or Apocalypse World/Dungeon World, which allow splitting or joining the party as clearly-identified GM moves.)

Rather, the party being split up was an emergent consequence of equipment rationing (there were only so many vacc suits in the PCs' vessel's ship's locker) and then player decision-making about who was good at what and hence should perform what task in exploring the abandoned ship. I had established a "clock" - an approaching Imperial naval cutter also seeking to interdict the abandoned ship - which generated a bit of in-fiction pressure for the players to move quickly rather than languidly, but that also did not have an in-system manifestation (like eg a AW clock) beyond me vaguely calling the passing of ingame time.

Given the lack of mechanical support for this, in a group that was far more determined to "never split the party" I think there may not have been so much of an Alien feel to the scenario. Though maybe under those hypothetical circumstances I would have remembered to use the morale rules which might have forced a party split at some key moments.

5e D&D doesn't have any way I know of to force a splitting of the party - not even morale rules, I think - and is missing a number of my asterisked features (eg all D&D PCs are, by default, combat capable; it doesn't have space-y elements by default; and as a FRPG it tends towards the Star Wars-y end of the gritty-to-gonzo spectrum). So I'm really not persuaded that it can do an Alien-like scenario.


----------



## Campbell (Feb 17, 2021)

Jack Daniel said:


> I'm sorry, but you don't get to just handwave handwaving. Knowing when not to use any rules at all is an essential part of running _any_ RPG system effecitvely.




No it's not. It's not a core feature of Sorcerer, Dogs in the Vineyard, Apocalypse World, Cthulhu Dark, or innumerable games.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 17, 2021)

TheSword said:


> It’s ludicrous to suggest that a setting can’t be sci-fi if it doesn’t give the PCs control over interstellar star ships. Ludicrous.
> 
> The Thing, Blade Runner, Pitch Black, Species, Terminator, Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
> 
> ...



I didn't say it couldn't be sci fi, I said it couldn't be Aliens.  It's not about flying the ship either, specifically, but it is about repairing the ship, dealing with hard vacuum, wearing space suits and a bunch of other ship related stuff. If I'd meant just flying the ship I would have said so, so maybe put that 'ludicrous' of yours back in it's sheath until you have something appropriate to use it on. Also, not to belabour the obvious, but what parts of the Aliens movies happen without interstellar travel? None, that's how many parts. It's a key element.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Feb 18, 2021)

Jack Daniel said:


> I'm sorry, but you don't get to just handwave handwaving. Knowing when not to use any rules at all is an essential part of running _any_ RPG system effecitvely.



I'm sorry, but @Campbell isn't the one handwaving handwaving here. Knowing when not to use any rules at all is only an essential part of running any RPG _where the underlying approach to game design is rules-as-physics-engine._

Other paradigms are _rules-as-user-interface_ and _rules-for-conflict-resolution_. It's only really rules-as-physics-engine where you have to stop using the rules because physics engines break easily either through out of bounds errors or outside context problems.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 18, 2021)

Another thing about splitting up the party in Classic Traveller: most of the PCs are carrying communicators, which means that the players can talk to one another not only at the table but in character, which means that when one PC is running screaming _the other PCs know what is happening_ and so there can be a sort-of party play even though the party is separated.

This also supports the way in which the narrative experience of a RPG differs from that of a film: when a player's PC runs screaming, and then we at the table establish that the screams will carry over the PC's communicator, the other players don't just have their _personal real world _reaction of wondering what's going to happen to the running PC; they can also have their _playing their PC _reaction, of declaring an action in response for their PC.

This interplay of the equipment list, the ingame capacities of the PCs, and how these support the players at the table feeding their reactions back into their game play, isn't a default part of D&D. And I'm not fully persuaded that someone whose main play experience was with D&D would necessarily think of it in advance as something to allow for in their Alien scenario based around low-level fighters and rogues.


----------



## TheSword (Feb 18, 2021)

pemerton said:


> A bit over a year ago I ran an Alien-inspired Classic Traveller session.
> 
> Keeping in mind the points @Campbell and @Neonchameleon have made about both technical elements of system, and more fundamental/underlying processes of play, I want to try and itemise some of what was needed to make this work:
> 
> ...




It is very simple. The same way I would do it any system. Give them two different tasks that need to be completed at the same time.


The ships detonation sequence has started - controlled from the bridge.
The escape pod will take one hour to prep for launch.

There’s a much reduced chance the pod will escape if the ship detonates. But if you can’t stop the detonation you are going to need the pod ready to launch. Simple. It’s the same way it’s been done time and time again.

[Edited] to avoid a railroad.


----------



## TheSword (Feb 18, 2021)

Fenris-77 said:


> I didn't say it couldn't be sci fi, I said it couldn't be Aliens.  It's not about flying the ship either, specifically, but it is about repairing the ship, dealing with hard vacuum, wearing space suits and a bunch of other ship related stuff. If I'd meant just flying the ship I would have said so, so maybe put that 'ludicrous' of yours back in it's sheath until you have something appropriate to use it on. Also, not to belabour the obvious, but what parts of the Aliens movies happen without interstellar travel? None, that's how many parts. It's a key element.



Yes it’s background noise. The protagonists don’t fly the ships as a general rule.

Anyway flying a ship - tool proficiency ship


----------



## TheSword (Feb 18, 2021)

pemerton said:


> Another thing about splitting up the party in Classic Traveller: most of the PCs are carrying communicators, which means that the players can talk to one another not only at the table but in character, which means that when one PC is running screaming _the other PCs know what is happening_ and so there can be a sort-of party play even though the party is separated.
> 
> This also supports the way in which the narrative experience of a RPG differs from that of a film: when a player's PC runs screaming, and then we at the table establish that the screams will carry over the PC's communicator, the other players don't just have their _personal real world _reaction of wondering what's going to happen to the running PC; they can also have their _playing their PC _reaction, of declaring an action in response for their PC.
> 
> This interplay of the equipment list, the ingame capacities of the PCs, and how these support the players at the table feeding their reactions back into their game play, isn't a default part of D&D. And I'm not fully persuaded that someone whose main play experience was with D&D would necessarily think of it in advance as something to allow for in their Alien scenario based around low-level fighters and rogues.



If they go down the Dark Heresy route, all sorts of other options become possible.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 18, 2021)

TheSword said:


> It is very simple. The same way I would do it any system. Give them two different tasks that need to be completed at the same time.
> 
> 
> You must shut off the detonation sequence.
> ...



The greater the railroad, the less system matters. This has already been established in this thread and its sister one.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 18, 2021)

TheSword said:


> If they go down the Dark Heresy route, all sorts of other options become possible.



I'm not sure what you mean by this. I thought Dark Heresy was a Warhammer offshoot. How does it relate to using 5e D&D to run an Alien scenario?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 18, 2021)

TheSword said:


> I by no means need to include *everything* in a campaign for it to be a suitable campaign. The dark heresy rules had no options for space marines as PCs. I could create a space marine NPC using 5e without breaking a sweat. The rules for Star ships also weren’t present. If I needed a smaller vehicle - speeder, or gun cutter the 5e rules for vehicles enable that. If I use a star ship it’s a location.
> 
> Unfortunately with your talk of ‘forcing a story’ you are just demonstrating poor sportsmanship. You asked me to show how I would run a 5e campaign set in a gritty, sci-fi horror setting. Dark Heresy admirable fills that setting.



You shifted the pea from "game" to "specific instance of an idea."  The idea that 5e can do gritty futuristic sci-fi horror (hereafter gfsfh) is incorrect -- it cannot.  The idea that you can crib out a play session or eight from a specific concept that vaguely does gfsfh is not the same thing.  This is, as I noted, a category error -- you're claiming a skateboard is the same as a car, because it has four wheels.  The car has more.  A specific, highly curated "campaign" (itself a vague term) is not the same as a game that can do gfsfh.


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 18, 2021)

Deleted.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 18, 2021)

TwoSix said:


> Man, you just waved a red flag in front of a lot of riled-up bulls.



???  I agree with the statement, but not as a "system doesn't matter" point, but as tacit acknowledgement that system does matter and, when it's misbehaving, you need to ignore it.  If you didn't, it wouldn't matter.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 18, 2021)

TheSword said:


> Yes it’s background noise. The protagonists don’t fly the ships as a general rule.
> 
> Anyway flying a ship - tool proficiency ship



I'm not clear how this is supposed to be a reply to the post of mine you quoted.


----------



## TheSword (Feb 18, 2021)

It’s fascinating how the people claiming gritty sci-fi horror was *impossible in 5e you fool. *Are now only saying that a game representing Alien is impossible... and then only if you must include Star ships as PC tools, and only if you don’t use devices like simultaneous tasks. 

Oh yeah, it’s not enough as well that 5e can do a rough job of this... it has to now do the best job. 

... A far cry from an impossible task... no need to call John Wick.


----------



## TheSword (Feb 18, 2021)

pemerton said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by this. I thought Dark Heresy was a Warhammer offshoot. How does it relate to using 5e D&D to run an Alien scenario?



How is Alien now the standard that has been set? I just said gritty sci-fi horror. There are lots of examples of this.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 18, 2021)

TheSword said:


> How is Alien now the standard that has been set? I just said gritty sci-fi horror. There are lots of examples of this.



You posted this:


TheSword said:


> A DM could give themselves the task of running a 5e adventure on the nostromo.



If you're now moving from Alien to Dark Heresy, how does that make a difference? Especially to my post that you responded to, which talked about splitting the party and techniques for managing that by exploiting a certain interface between fiction and table (ie separated PCs communicating via radio).

EDIT:
A more general point about this - I posted an actual-play analysis of what was needed to produce an Alien experience, and how elements of the system I used supported it, and how some stuff - especially splitting the party - came about without using the system as such or any particularly directed techniques.

I explained where I thought I had a more robust toolkit ready-to-hand than 5e D&D provides for this purpose.

So far the only way you've engaged in a concrete way with that is to say that you would force a party split via "simultaneous tasks". What happens if the players don't go along with that? And while the party is split, how do you handle the interaction of table dynamics, "party" play, and physical separation of the PCs?

So far all I'm seeing is that you can run the Nostromo as a dungeon crawl, with fighters and rogues re-badged as space marines and space truckers and with Aliens instead of gricks. Is that what you have in mind as a gritty futuristic sci-fi horror scenario?


----------



## TheSword (Feb 18, 2021)

pemerton said:


> You posted this:
> 
> If you're now moving from Alien to Dark Heresy, how does that make a difference? Especially to my post that you responded to, which talked about splitting the party and techniques for managing that by exploiting a certain interface between fiction and table (ie separated PCs communicating via radio).



The nostromo was an example of a creepy gothic location for an adventure... nothing more. I never left Dark Heresy. I have repeatedly used it as an example in the last few pages of posts. I cited Harlocks Legacy as an easy campaign to convert.

I reject the claim made by @Ovinomancer that you have to have come up with an entire campaign setting to enjoy several months enjoyable themed gaming. As I said Harlocks Legacy would be very enjoyable way for our group to do it.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 18, 2021)

I think someone might be seriously underestimating the importance of coms to sci fi horror scenarios.


----------



## TheSword (Feb 18, 2021)

pemerton said:


> You posted this:
> 
> If you're now moving from Alien to Dark Heresy, how does that make a difference? Especially to my post that you responded to, which talked about splitting the party and techniques for managing that by exploiting a certain interface between fiction and table (ie separated PCs communicating via radio).
> 
> ...



I don’t need to conform to your (or anybody else’s) gate keeping of what a particular genre stands for. There are lots of ways of running an adventure. Your methods are... specific... and you don’t run games the way I do. Let’s leave it there. You expressed the idea that you struggled to split the party. I suggested time-bound simultaneous events or tasks. If you don’t like that, good for you. There’s no need to be snippy about it.

Incidentally, despite DMing three times a week for the last 12 months I haven’t ran a dungeon crawl in that period. They’re not my preferred type of adventure. Though I am due to run a conversion of Shards of Sin next week so I’ll get my practice in.


----------



## turnip_farmer (Feb 18, 2021)

pemerton said:


> Is _this_ supposed to be the argument that system doesn't matter, and will have no effect on the play experience?




No, everyone agreed that system matters 200 posts ago. I've got no idea what this thread is about any more.


----------



## chaochou (Feb 18, 2021)

turnip_farmer said:


> No, everyone agreed that system matters 200 posts ago. I've got no idea what this thread is about any more.




At this point, it's about taking D&D 5e.

Then ignoring everything the game gives you to play with - race, class, levelling up, weapons and armour, all the rules for spells, magic and magic items, equipment, background.

And then claiming that system doesn't matter.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 18, 2021)

chaochou said:


> At this point, it's about taking D&D 5e.
> 
> Then ignoring everything the game gives you to play with - race, class, levelling up, weapons and armour, all the rules for spells, magic and magic items, equipment, background.
> 
> And then claiming that system doesn't matter.



“All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what has _the System_ ever done for us?”

“Brought peace.”

“Oh. Peace? Shut up!”



turnip_farmer said:


> No, everyone agreed that system matters 200 posts ago. I've got no idea what this thread is about any more.



I think it's more that people say that "system matters" while also minimalizing its importance out of the other side of their mouth so they can have it both ways: it matters but also it doesn't (almost always when it involves D&D or its kin). And the argumentation that tries to minimize its importance or impact betrays a confusion about "system matters" that seems borne from the bias about one's favored system.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 18, 2021)

turnip_farmer said:


> No, everyone agreed that system matters 200 posts ago. I've got no idea what this thread is about any more.



I think I do - it's a fight between two different views of "system", from what I can tell. 
TheSword is looking at 5e as a system by looking at its chassis - 6 stats, checks are made on those stats modified by proficiency modifier, etc and asserting that system can be used for gritty sci fi like Alien by changing or reskinning the details that are hung on that chassis.
The people he is arguing with aren't separating chassis from details when looking at 5e as a system.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 18, 2021)

I tend to call the one thing an engine and the other a system. The D&D engine is very flexible while the system isn't. To play sci fi successfully you'd need a different system wrapped around the engine.


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 18, 2021)

billd91 said:


> I think I do - it's a fight between two different views of "system", from what I can tell.
> TheSword is looking at 5e as a system by looking at its chassis - 6 stats, checks are made on those stats modified by proficiency modifier, etc and asserting that system can be used for gritty sci fi like Alien by changing or reskinning the details that are hung on that chassis.
> The people he is arguing with aren't separating chassis from details when looking at 5e as a system.



Yea, I think that's largely correct.  The mechanical chassis is an important part of the system, but all the other details are also part of the system.  Like, 3.0, 3.5, and PF all have the same chassis, but I would say they are all different systems.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 18, 2021)

billd91 said:


> I think I do - it's a fight between two different views of "system", from what I can tell.
> TheSword is looking at 5e as a system by looking at its chassis - 6 stats, checks are made on those stats modified by proficiency modifier, etc and asserting that system can be used for gritty sci fi like Alien by changing or reskinning the details that are hung on that chassis.
> The people he is arguing with aren't separating chassis from details when looking at 5e as a system.




The below post addresses this:  *...just a (a) core action resolution engine +(b) a set of play priorities + (c) GMing ethos = chassis or base game.  Differing (d) through (f) with (a) - (c) fundamentally intact constitutes a hack (eg Dungeon World is a hack of Apocalypse World in in the family of PBtA games).*



Manbearcat said:


> I mentioned in the other thread what I see as the fault line for a "hack" (which is a new game despite being in the family of games of the original):
> 
> * Blades in the Dark isn't *just a (a) core action resolution engine and (b) a set of play priorities and (c) GMing ethos*. Its a game with (d) a specific setting/genre, (e) a specific Win/Loss Con. Then it has (f) a particular set of mechanics that integrate and facilitate the realization of that a - e.
> 
> ...


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 18, 2021)

Fenris-77 said:


> I tend to call the one thing an engine and the other a system. The D&D engine is very flexible while the system isn't. To play sci fi successfully you'd need a different system wrapped around the engine.



While the 5e engine is incredibly flexible - as it's really just a modified version of the twenty-year-old d20 system - I don't think that the game is necessarily equipped to handle other types of games or genres as well as some imagine. I think part of that comes from a reticence for including the sorts of mechanics that makes other games appropriate for certain genres and/or playstyles. One just has to discuss those other mechanics and you can see the hairs stand on end. It's the subtext that reads "Of course the 5e engine could do that but don't bring those mechanics anywhere close to the 5e engine."


----------



## fearsomepirate (Feb 18, 2021)

If you want to see how badly the basic D&D approach of ascending damage, defense, and hit points works if you do something other than "journey to the fantastic," even within high fantasy, try the game Divinity: Original Sin II some time. You spend a great deal of time traveling laterally, from city to city. In order to somehow squash this into a D&D-ish mold (yes, I know it's not based on any edition of DnD), everyone from military officers to beggars and stray dogs have increasingly higher and higher hit points and do more and more damage as you progress through the story.

Mechanically, it's absurd to see a 220-hp dog after you had earlier slain a 25-hp warrior, and illustrates the basic inadequacy of this sort of "more hit points and damage dice" structure to handle this kind of adventure.

D&D is also completely incapable of handling the "legendary hero killed by a twist of fate" trope, which is as common in myth as it is in real life. Many an experienced warrior has been killed by a stray bullet , surprise ambush, or duel gone wrong, by a comparative nobody. In D&D, or any game that follows its basic structure, the chance of a powerful warrior being killed in a blow by "just some guy" is zero.  You'd need something completely different than escalating hit points and damage to represent power.


----------



## prabe (Feb 18, 2021)

fearsomepirate said:


> D&D is also completely incapable of handling the "legendary hero killed by a twist of fate" trope, which is as common in myth as it is in real life. Many an experienced warrior has been killed by a stray bullet , surprise ambush, or duel gone wrong, by a comparative nobody. In D&D, or any game that follows its basic structure, the chance of a powerful warrior being killed in a blow by "just some guy" is zero.  You'd need something completely different than escalating hit points and damage to represent power.



Or resolve the "twist of fate" as something more than, e.g., one attack. Not arguing, just mentioning another possibility (as someone who has at times come to think of Multiattack, at least for PCs,  as representing/modeling at least the possibility of doing more damage with a single blow).


----------



## TheSword (Feb 18, 2021)

billd91 said:


> I think I do - it's a fight between two different views of "system", from what I can tell.
> TheSword is looking at 5e as a system by looking at its chassis - 6 stats, checks are made on those stats modified by proficiency modifier, etc and asserting that system can be used for gritty sci fi like Alien by changing or reskinning the details that are hung on that chassis.
> The people he is arguing with aren't separating chassis from details when looking at 5e as a system.



That’s pretty much it. The system is just a way of working out how likely something is to succeed or fail. Whether that’s jump a gap, kill a monster (or a PC) or drive a cart. Abilities, equipment etc just modifies this in unusual ways. 

What I like about D&D is balance, simplicity, and ease of modification. While still playable with minimal effort in its own right.

If I want a particular monster for conversion from another system i can generally do it in a couple of mins in a Roll20 NPC template. Less if there’s a suitable alternative as base. Same with items.

Yet it has enough crunch that there ARE alternatives and I’m not creating everything from scratch.


----------



## fearsomepirate (Feb 18, 2021)

prabe said:


> Or resolve the "twist of fate" as something more than, e.g., one attack. Not arguing, just mentioning another possibility (as someone who has at times come to think of Multiattack, at least for PCs,  as representing/modeling at least the possibility of doing more damage with a single blow).




"The Commoner has held a grudge against you since you accidentally trampled his beloved cat with your horse while riding through town. Yes, you're 20th level, but owing to the situation, he gets 40 attacks during the first round."

I mean, you _could_.

I think if you wanted to handle Achilles getting got by Paris, Wild Bill getting shot in the back of the head, or King Saul dying to a stray arrow, you'd need a system that, instead of Hit Points and Damage, relied instead heavily on luck. Dice pool systems are much better at this.

So a system where hit points are _extremely_ bounded, we're talking no more than 10, ever, but a large dice pool means the chance of a low-level character ever killing a high-level character is zero, can easily admit something like, say, a Vendetta score or a Favor of the Gods score.

So, e.g., Wild Bill is a high-level Gunslinger. His dice pool is big. Jack McCall is a low-level Hunter. His dice pool is small. But Wild Bill is sitting with his back to the door (remove some dice from his pool) and Jack is pissed off from losing the game last night, so he gets extra dice from his Vendetta score. Since Jack was drunk when Wild Bill tried to help him, there's a chance your help gets perceived as an insult, bad roll, so Vendetta increases, Jack gets extra dice.

By the time you've resolved the pools, Jack has a surprisingly good chance to kill Wild Bill, due to events modifying the pools.


----------



## TheSword (Feb 18, 2021)

fearsomepirate said:


> If you want to see how badly the basic D&D approach of ascending damage, defense, and hit points works if you do something other than "journey to the fantastic," even within high fantasy, try the game Divinity: Original Sin II some time. You spend a great deal of time traveling laterally, from city to city. In order to somehow squash this into a D&D-ish mold (yes, I know it's not based on any edition of DnD), everyone from military officers to beggars and stray dogs have increasingly higher and higher hit points and do more and more damage as you progress through the story.
> 
> Mechanically, it's absurd to see a 220-hp dog after you had earlier slain a 25-hp warrior, and illustrates the basic inadequacy of this sort of "more hit points and damage dice" structure to handle this kind of adventure.
> 
> D&D is also completely incapable of handling the "legendary hero killed by a twist of fate" trope, which is as common in myth as it is in real life. Many an experienced warrior has been killed by a stray bullet , surprise ambush, or duel gone wrong, by a comparative nobody. In D&D, or any game that follows its basic structure, the chance of a powerful warrior being killed in a blow by "just some guy" is zero.  You'd need something completely different than escalating hit points and damage to represent power.



You understand that this is a choice though not a flaw. Most people don’t want to have their year and a half invested character taken out by an arrow from a goblin. I do think bounded accuracy is the closest we’ve got in the editions though past level 5.

WFRP had deadly combat, low wounds and limbs flying in everywhere. But it mitigates this with fate points so that you don’t really die much more frequently - you just nearly do.

I’m currently working through Assassins creed Odyssey which levels up enemies like you described. I’m sure you know it’s to facilitate the sandbox open world setting just like Skyrim, and a host of other poplar games.

There are games that avoid this like the Dark Souls franchise but they usually do it by making enemies so damned hard to start with you’re glad of the break.

I always like the Guildwars system of levelling up where you didn’t necessarily become stronger you just gained more powers. After a brief intro, everyone was level 20 and development was about finding equipment and elite powers. It was very playable.


----------



## prabe (Feb 18, 2021)

fearsomepirate said:


> I think if you wanted to handle Achilles getting got by Paris, Wild Bill getting shot in the back of the head, or King Saul dying to a stray arrow, you'd need a system that, instead of Hit Points and Damage, relied instead heavily on luck. Dice pool systems are much better at this.



I guess you could get somewhere close by using Massive Damage rules closer to what d20 Modern did, where IIRC the damage threshold above which instant death was possible was your CON score. In 5E you'd be making those rolls all the flipping time, but you've have a much deadlier combat--and the possibility of the commoner getting lucky with their one attack.

This isn't a recommendation that anyone try that, especially not if your combats already run slow (and I think I've seen that you have at least one player who decides slowly, so yours do).


----------



## fearsomepirate (Feb 18, 2021)

TheSword said:


> You understand that this is a choice though not a flaw. Most people don’t want to have their year and a half invested character taken out by an arrow from a goblin. I do think bounded accuracy is the closest we’ve got in the editions though past level 5.




Oh, absolutely. A system such as I described would not be very good at "Epic Hero Wading Through the Goblin Hordes." My point is simply that system very much influences what sort of stories emerge from the games you run. D&D doesn't do so hot at particular sorts of stories, but systems designed for those stories don't do so hot at spelunking the Underdark.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 18, 2021)

TheSword said:


> You understand that this is a choice though not a flaw.



Choices can be flaws: e.g., "Let's use a cheaper, less durable part for this component in our product to save on our production costs."


----------



## billd91 (Feb 18, 2021)

fearsomepirate said:


> "The Commoner has held a grudge against you since you accidentally trampled his beloved cat with your horse while riding through town. Yes, you're 20th level, but owing to the situation, he gets 40 attacks during the first round."
> 
> I mean, you _could_.
> 
> ...



Would you really *want* to model this in a game system's combat rules, though? Or is this better handled by some kind of narrative decision?


----------



## Jack Daniel (Feb 18, 2021)

billd91 said:


> I think I do - it's a fight between two different views of "system", from what I can tell.
> TheSword is looking at 5e as a system by looking at its chassis - 6 stats, checks are made on those stats modified by proficiency modifier, etc and asserting that system can be used for gritty sci fi like Alien by changing or reskinning the details that are hung on that chassis.
> The people he is arguing with aren't separating chassis from details when looking at 5e as a system.






Fenris-77 said:


> I tend to call the one thing an engine and the other a system. The D&D engine is very flexible while the system isn't. To play sci fi successfully you'd need a different system wrapped around the engine.




Pretty much. Like, anyone who says "the D&D system can't do sci-fi" is clearly using a definition of "system" that excludes White Star, Stars Without Number, Hulks & Horrors, Colonial Troopers, Spelljammer, Dragonstar, d20 Future, Star Wars d20, Farscape d20, Stargate d20, Starfinder, etc., etc.

I'm not. Those games are all clear examples of one D&D system or another "doing sci-fi." If you think Star Wars d20 _isn't _3rd edition D&D, we have very different concepts of "system."


----------



## TheSword (Feb 18, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> Choices can be flaws: e.g., "Let's use a cheaper, less durable part for this component in our product to save on our production costs."



Of course you’re right. I should have said ‘element the designers thought would make people enjoy the game more overall.’

Though to your specific point above, that choice isn’t a flaw. The flaw is a consequence of the choice which might come with its own benefit to the consumer. Bringing it within the price range of people who couldn’t otherwise afford it at only a small decrease in durability for instance.

Businesses (and individual) weigh up pros and cons all the time.


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 18, 2021)

Jack Daniel said:


> Pretty much. Like, anyone who says "the D&D system can't do sci-fi" is clearly using a definition of "system" that excludes White Star, Stars Without Number, Hulks & Horrors, Colonial Troopers, Spelljammer, Dragonstar, d20 Future, Star Wars d20, Farscape d20, Stargate d20, Starfinder, etc., etc.
> 
> I'm not. Those games are all clear examples of one D&D system or another "doing sci-fi." If you think Star Wars d20 _isn't _3rd edition D&D, we have very different concepts of "system."



Yea, then there's a terminology issue here.  I wouldn't consider LotFP, Hulks and Horrors, and ACKS to be the same system even though they're all derived from B/X.  Same with 1e and 2e.  I'd say they have the same chassis or engine, but aren't the same system.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 18, 2021)

Also, just because a published game did emulate an IP using a particular game engine, doesn't mean that it did it well. This was especially obvious during the times of the d20 System, which made this point abundantly clear. Even by d20 System enthusiasts, a lot of those games were getting flack for their conversions and the limitations of the d20 System in regards to the emulated material. It's hardly a coincidence IMO that Ron Edwards's "System Does Matter" essay came out in 2004 amidst the d20 System publishing bubble.


----------



## Arilyn (Feb 18, 2021)

To get away from D&D, I recently picked up Liminal, a modern fantasy rpg inspired by Charles De Lint, Rivers of London, Neil Gaiman, etc. I have my old World of Darkness books, so why not just use them? The games share similar themes, but Liminal is lighter, less personal horror and politics. The system is lighter as well. We used WoD, in the past, to do what we plan on doing with Liminal. Liminal is just going to fit our tastes and gaming style much better. We won't be fighting against the rules. We are happier, cause system matters.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 18, 2021)

Funny, I got that game very recenrly as well, althoigh I haven't done more than skim it.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 18, 2021)

Posted this in the wrong thread so reposting here.  I don't see an embarrassed emoji...so...oops?

Here is a quick anecdote from my last night's game that shows how "system matters" in a way where some might think "system doesn't matter there...the issue is the players!"

I've got 3 games going right now, but last night's game features two brand new TTRPGers (every now and again I try to introduce people to the hobby). One is slightly reserved (not full-blown introverted) while the other leans toward extraverted. This Dungeon World game is about 4 months old and we play every 3 weeks or so (this was session 5). Like all PBtA games, Dungeon World is very demanding of players. You cannot be passive. You have to actively advocate for your character. You have to actively be a participant in the conversation of play and answer provocative questions when asked and bring to bear interesting answers which are genre/theme/continuity-coherent which propel play forward. Its taken a few session, but these guys are finally getting there and enjoying themselves.

Last night we brought in a new player (a friend of two of us). She has also never played TTRPGs but she is an extraordinary reader (of all genres including fantasy) and has a lot of exposure via other mediums. She's also somewhat extraverted (though not hugely) and also attentive, empathic, and self-aware.

No disrespect to my two pals, but she is a natural. She blows them out of the water in every way; "knowing the room", "advocating for her character aggressively and coherently", "fitting into the chemistry of the conversation", "deploying immense creativity", "smoothly trying to keep everyone involved." She also makes fundamentally sound decisions (talking through her thinking) when navigating difficult decision-points. Right now (her first time ever playing a TTRPG game), she is one of the best gamers I've ever run games for and an absolute perfect fit for games like PBtA, FitD, DitV, et al.

These two guys went from "getting it" and having solid chemistry together (and within the framework of play) to suddenly deferring to her awkwardly and playing extremely passively. They were clearly intimidated and it wasn't because they weren't comfortable with her and/or they're hyper-introverts.

I was dissatisfied with the play experience due to the (I'm going to call it) "regression" of my other two friends. It wasn't a bad session, but nowhere as good as the last two because the "collective energy" wasn't well-distributed. This would not have been an issue in a system that isn't uniquely demanding of players where the significant majority of that aforementioned collective energy that propels play is concentrated in the GM and the metaplot (AP or the GM's own).


----------



## Campbell (Feb 18, 2021)

@Manbearcat


When I play more traditional games I enjoy the experience, but feel like I often have to moderate my play. As someone who is very extroverted and likes to play games hard I find that I often have to read the room and hold back on my play. When I play Masks or Apocalypse World that concern fades away because there is no real danger of grabbing the spotlight because when the GM turns to me and says "Character name, what do you do?" the spotlight is on my character and when it's someone else's turn it's on them. I get to play as hard as I want to.


----------



## fearsomepirate (Feb 18, 2021)

billd91 said:


> Would you really *want* to model this in a game system's combat rules, though? Or is this better handled by some kind of narrative decision?




Personally, I want to play D&D. Somebody else might want something quite different.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 18, 2021)

Campbell said:


> @Manbearcat
> 
> 
> When I play more traditional games I enjoy the experience, but feel like I often have to moderate my play. As someone who is very extroverted and likes to play games hard I find that I often have to read the room and hold back on my play. When I play Masks or Apocalypse World that concern fades away because there is no real danger of grabbing the spotlight because when the GM turns to me and says "Character name, what do you do?" the spotlight is on my character and when it's someone else's turn it's on them. I get to play as hard as I want to.




Yup.  This is a huge deal.  We talk about authority distribution all the time (and, while certainly related, they aren't exactly the same), but the expectation of how the collective energy is distributed is equally important.

Then (after expectation is established) we can talk about procedurally how to orient toward energy distribution parity (which is, in part, about authority).


----------



## Arilyn (Feb 18, 2021)

Some players like to just float, roll dice, and leave the decision making and tactics to the other players. These kind of players are not a good fit for PbtA games. A typical D&D game, however, allows them to just roll dice and observe. 

I didn't role play back in the day, when AD&D was pretty much the only game in town, because I hated the system. The system was a huge barrier for me. 

I'm glad we have a large variety of games that are much easier to access. System matters is a boon, in my opinion, because there is a much higher chance of matching people up with a game that'll sing for them.


----------



## Jack Daniel (Feb 18, 2021)

TwoSix said:


> Yea, then there's a terminology issue here.  I wouldn't consider LotFP, Hulks and Horrors, and ACKS to be the same system even though they're all derived from B/X.  Same with 1e and 2e.  I'd say they have the same chassis or engine, but aren't the same system.




I would definitely characterize those games as all sharing a system. ("Engine" and "chassis" might as well be synonyms.) That's their whole draw. 

_White St_ar is my go-to sci-fi game and not _Traveller_ precisely because it's "D&D in space," and that's the sort of experience I want out of a sci-fi RPG. System matters -- more than fluff or branding IMO -- but that's not license to claim that genre emulation is determinative.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 18, 2021)

Jack Daniel said:


> I would definitely characterize those games as all sharing a system. ("Engine" and "chassis" might as well be synonyms.) That's their whole draw.
> 
> _White St_ar is my go-to sci-fi game and not _Traveller_ precisely because it's "D&D in space," and that's the sort of experience I want out of a sci-fi RPG. System matters -- more than fluff or branding IMO -- but that's not license to claim that genre emulation is determinative.



To me, if I can't do a thing without extensive changes, it's a different system.  White Star uses a d20 and class based design, but that doesn't make it the same system as other d20, class based systems, even though they'll have lots of similarities.  I also find this opinion largely held by people that haven't stepped out of that d20 design world, or into games that alter the assumed power dynamics of the game.  It's a comfortable place to be -- you can quickly pick up related games (this is a draw for PbtA games, as well -- understanding the core engine means the different systems are about adapting to the specifics rather than learning a new thing).  But, this doesn't mean that an engine that can sub into multiple genres is capable of any genre (again, Monsterhearts is a clear example).

If "system" just means a basic resolution system, then it's far to broad a term to be useful.  I find little to be similar to a game of 3.x compared to Mutants and Masterminds, even though they share the same basic resolution system.


----------



## MacD (Feb 18, 2021)

I think mostly system FLAWS matter; yes, most games would be hard to be re-written for a completely another genre, but it would be possible somehow.
On the other side, if you play a system and encounter strange odds (rulewise, not plotwise - in cthulhu it´s totally ok to encounter stragne odd things) that disturb the feeling many times a day, playing starts to feel wrong.
Earlier this thread someone mentioned a traveller version´s combat system - if you want to shoot sometimes without the need of killing everything, that´s ok, if you want to KILL somebody like weapons should do it´s a big system flaw.

I remember nearly-undestructible Cyber-Trolls in Shadowrun 3 - killed by slipping some stairs. Just because system says falling damage may not be prevented by armor - neck broken, character dead.

By the way, I somehow don´t like systems that use combat-like systems for social encounters (Infinity, I´m looking on you), but I also dislike the nearly-total absence of social abilities in d&d.

Ever played a game that provides three! combat systems (Fighting, social encounters and "infowar"- influencing the meaning of many via media in a way you want to)?
You will always feel weak.
You know you play a great fighter - but if your enemy is a politican he will talk you into the ground and three days later half the city believes your fighter is a murderhobo.
Yaaay.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 18, 2021)

MacD said:


> I think mostly system FLAWS matter; yes, most games would be hard to be re-written for a completely another genre, but it would be possible somehow.
> On the other side, if you play a system and encounter strange odds (rulewise, not plotwise - in cthulhu it´s totally ok to encounter stragne odd things) that disturb the feeling many times a day, playing starts to feel wrong.
> Earlier this thread someone mentioned a traveller version´s combat system - if you want to shoot sometimes without the need of killing everything, that´s ok, if you want to KILL somebody like weapons should do it´s a big system flaw.
> 
> ...



I play systems that have 1 resolution systems for fighting, talking, and whatever infowar is standing in for.  Works a treat!  The problem you're referencing, though, isn't a problem with differing systems, but with differing system weights -- if talking can convince a city that you're a horrible person and need to be evicted/arrested but you can only beat up one or a few people at a time, then the issue isn't the resolution method, but the balance between scopes.  Clearly, in this game, you shouldn't put a lot of effort into learning to beat things up.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 18, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> If "system" just means a basic resolution system, then it's far to broad a term to be useful.  I find little to be similar to a game of 3.x compared to Mutants and Masterminds, even though they share the same basic resolution system.



It's hard to imagine that the OSR would have any of the momentum or legs to stand on that it did if simply having six attributes and a d20 resolution system was all it takes to be the same system as the WotC era of D&D.


----------



## jayoungr (Feb 18, 2021)

My answer:

Yes, but in most cases, not as much as some people claim.

I think you can do most adventure-type scenarios with most adventure-type games, and the differences created by the game system will be relatively minimal.

If you want to do something that isn't a straightforward adventure scenario, then you might need to search for a more tailored system.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Feb 18, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> Also, just because a published game did emulate an IP using a particular game engine, doesn't mean that it did it well. This was especially obvious during the times of the d20 System, which made this point abundantly clear. Even by d20 System enthusiasts, a lot of those games were getting flack for their conversions and the limitations of the d20 System in regards to the emulated material. It's hardly a coincidence IMO that Ron Edwards's "System Does Matter" essay came out in 2004 amidst the d20 System publishing bubble.



Who needs Tales of Equrestria when there's Ponyfinder!!


----------



## Arilyn (Feb 19, 2021)

Fenris-77 said:


> Funny, I got that game very recenrly as well, althoigh I haven't done more than skim it.



It has gorgeous art!


----------



## pemerton (Feb 19, 2021)

TheSword said:


> The system is just a way of working out how likely something is to succeed or fail. Whether that’s jump a gap, kill a monster (or a PC) or drive a cart. Abilities, equipment etc just modifies this in unusual ways.



System is much more than this. Consider:

* Who gets to establish initial fiction? Who gets to establish which characters are in a scene/situation? Who gets to decide what is at stake in a scene/situation?

* What is the range of permissible player-side moves, and who polices that?

* Who gets to establish consequences of player moves? How does this change, if at all, depending on whether the player succeeds or fails on a check?

* Who has access to "off screen" fiction and is able to bring that on-screen or leverage it in other ways?

* When a participant does introduce new content into the shared fiction, what constraints operate on that? This is especially important if the game includes a GM-type participant, whose participation in play is not channelled through a particular protagonist in the shared fiction.​
In 5e D&D, the answer to nearly all those _who _questions is _the GM_, and the answer to the question about constraints on the GM is generally _none that are not either self-imposed or established by informal social understandings_.

There is a big contrast with (say) MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic in this respect. The GM establishes the initial fiction, and can establish what characters are in a scene, but that is rationed (via the Doom Pool). There are mechanical constraints too on the GM introducing new fiction, including consequences: this either has to flow from Doom Pool expenditure or be the result of successful actions by GM-controlled characters. Players other than the GM can access "off screen" fiction, by spending resources and/or succeeding on action declarations.

The answers to these questions aren't irrelevant to running a gritty futuristic sci-fi horror game, either. For instance, the more that the system gives players control over _which characters are in a scene/situation_, the harder it is to do that sort of horror. The more that the system looks to the GM to establish consequences in all cases, and not just failed checks, the greater the risk it comes across just as the GM hosing the players. The more gonzo the range of permissible player moves, the harder it is to maintain a gritty horror feel. Etc.

These are some of the matters I addressed upthread in my discussion of using Classic Traveller to run a gritty futuristic sci-fi horror scenario. None of them is about _the way of working out how likely something is to succeed or fail_. The fact that that phrase_ doesn't even have a personal pronoun that might refer to one or another of the participants in the game_ shows how inadequate it is as a way of thinking about RPG systems.


----------



## TheSword (Feb 19, 2021)

pemerton said:


> System is much more than this. Consider:
> 
> * Who gets to establish initial fiction? Who gets to establish which characters are in a scene/situation? Who gets to decide what is at stake in a scene/situation?​​* What is the range of permissible player-side moves, and who polices that?​​* Who gets to establish consequences of player moves? How does this change, if at all, depending on whether the player succeeds or fails on a check?​​* Who has access to "off screen" fiction and is able to bring that on-screen or leverage it in other ways?​​* When a participant does introduce new content into the shared fiction, what constraints operate on that? This is especially important if the game includes a GM-type participant, whose participation in play is not channelled through a particular protagonist in the shared fiction.​
> In 5e D&D, the answer to nearly all those _who _questions is _the GM_, and the answer to the question about constraints on the GM is generally _none that are not either self-imposed or established by informal social understandings_.
> ...



Yes you are of course right. It is possible to have a game system to generate the plot elements that a DM would typically arrange to delight and entertain their players. Yes.

I revise my statement to be “in the most games the system is just a way of working out how likely something is to succeed or fail. Whether that’s jump a gap, kill a monster (or a PC) or drive a cart. Abilities, equipment etc just modifies this in unusual ways.”

I disagree that horror is better with player control. Part of the experience of being scared is not being control.

I don’t believe how you generate the story is any more than just a personal preference. It is not inherently better or worse.

I’m going to regret this but can you give an example of your system leads to a scenario that is more horrific/scary?


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 19, 2021)

@pemerton is talking about how a given game apportions agency, which is not at all what you seem to be responding to. It's also fundamental to people's enjoyment of various games, or their lack of enjoyment. It's a big part of what a game system is, it is very different from system to system, and also has nothing to do with how likely something is to occur in the diagetic frame, which I find an entirely unsatisfactory and incomplete definition of what a RPG system is and what is accomplished though its use at the table.


----------



## Arilyn (Feb 19, 2021)

Games have default expectations about characters. Nobilis, for example, is about very potent beings, god like. The rules of the game, therefore, are wrapped around these expectations. Even Fate, which is a very flexible generic system assumes a certain type of play. 

If I want to do investigative play, I'd turn to a Gumshoe game, because it excels at this. If I want super heroes, I have a lot of good choices these days, that do it better than trying to get 5e to work. Mutants and Masterminds is based off d20, but has been greatly stretched and altered. 

Class and level based games don't work for a lot of genres. And as pemerton says, if you are looking to delve into a game that is not GM focussed, it's necessary to look beyond the more traditional mainstream games. Sorcerer could not be done with D20, Fate, Cortex, Genesys, etc.  It has a very specific game play, where system matters a lot. 

We need system to matter, or the hobby would not be as varied and rich as it is.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 19, 2021)

TheSword said:


> Yes you are of course right. It is possible to have a game system to generate the plot elements that a DM would typically arrange to delight and entertain their players. Yes.
> 
> I revise my statement to be “in the most games the system is just a way of working out how likely something is to succeed or fail. Whether that’s jump a gap, kill a monster (or a PC) or drive a cart. Abilities, equipment etc just modifies this in unusual ways.”
> 
> ...



To me this suggests that you haven't understood my post.

Let's look at just one issue: _who gets to leverage offscreen fiction_?

I'll provide one example, which is taken from a sidebar in the 3E D&D module Bastion of Broken Souls with the heading "The Second String". I don't have my copy ready to hand, so I can't remember all the names of the characters. But what the sidebar says, roughly, is that _if the PCs kill a particular NPC, whose function in the "plot" of the module is to be used by the GM to drive the players towards certain goals and decision-points, then the GM should introduce the "second string" of NPCs - a group of 3 balors - to perform the same function_.

That instruction to the GM only makes sense because the 3E system, like the AD&D 2nd ed and 5e systems, takes for granted that the GM has _unfettered authority over what is happening offscreen, and when and how it can be brought onscreen_.

That assumption is not part of Moldvay Basic D&D and Gygax's AD&D: these assume that, once the dungeon key is written, the GM can only introduce new content during a delve via the wandering monster rules. What happens _between_ delves is a bit more vague - and in fact I think there are contradictions between Gygax's PHB and his DMG in this respect, perhaps reflecting his evolving thinking - but the limit on GM authority during a delve is enough to illustrate the point that the assumption is not universal.

MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic doesn't have anything like a wandering monster or dungeon key process as part of the system, but also imposes constraints on how the GM can access the offscreen and bring it onscreen, _and _gives players authority to do so also.

These allocations of authority are as much a feature of 5e D&D as other systems that have similar or different such allocations. The fact that they are invisible to you suggests to me that you don't have much experience with varying them. That helps to explain why you tend to doubt that system matters, and also while you seem to frame all RPGing through the lens of the players working through the GM's pre-established story.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 19, 2021)

pemerton said:


> That assumption is not part of Moldvay Basic D&D and Gygax's AD&D: these assume that, once the dungeon key is written, the GM can only introduce new content during a delve via the wandering monster rules.




I think what is extremely illustrative of the point here is consider the implications on delves when you do but one thing:

Sub out the Wandering Monster "Clock" (and all of the integrated machinery including tight time-tracking in Exploration Turns, Rest, Reaction, Morale) and sub in GM extrapolation of the setting and abstraction of time.

The same thing goes when you sub in Torchbearer's Light and Condition Clocks (and all of the integrated machinery).  Its MUCH closer to the experience of Moldvay Basic, though certainly not the same.  And neither are anything like GM setting extrapolation and abstraction of time.


----------



## TheSword (Feb 19, 2021)

pemerton said:


> To me this suggests that you haven't understood my post.
> 
> Let's look at just one issue: _who gets to leverage offscreen fiction_?
> 
> ...



I understand Agency. There are degrees of it. Not everyone needs to have it to the extent you personally expect.

Sorry Permerton. You didn’t answer my question. Or certainly not in a clear way. How does your suggested system help increase horror/fear factor?


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 19, 2021)

I'm not convinced you understand agency, how a system apportions it a a table, or what the various signifiers are in a game that indexes a particular division.


----------



## TheSword (Feb 19, 2021)

Fenris-77 said:


> I'm not convinced you understand agency, how a system apportions it a a table, or what the various signifiers are in a game that indexes a particular division.



What an odd comment. More than a little condescending. Is that your intention?


----------



## pemerton (Feb 19, 2021)

TheSword said:


> I understand Agency. There are degrees of it. Not everyone needs to have it to the extent you personally expect.



On this I agree with @Fenris-77.



TheSword said:


> Sorry Permerton. You didn’t answer my question. Or certainly not in a clear way. How does your suggested system help increase horror/fear factor?



Here are some reposts that answer that question:



pemerton said:


> Another thing about splitting up the party in Classic Traveller: most of the PCs are carrying communicators, which means that the players can talk to one another not only at the table but in character, which means that when one PC is running screaming _the other PCs know what is happening_ and so there can be a sort-of party play even though the party is separated.
> 
> This also supports the way in which the narrative experience of a RPG differs from that of a film: when a player's PC runs screaming, and then we at the table establish that the screams will carry over the PC's communicator, the other players don't just have their _personal real world _reaction of wondering what's going to happen to the running PC; they can also have their _playing their PC _reaction, of declaring an action in response for their PC.
> 
> This interplay of the equipment list, the ingame capacities of the PCs, and how these support the players at the table feeding their reactions back into their game play <snip the rest>






pemerton said:


> * Classic Traveller is quite non-Star Wars in its fiction - the main weapons are firearms, the most common armour is ballistic cloth, etc, ships can travel FTL but can't cross the galaxy in hours or days, and not even in a single longer voyage. This means that the system, played in accordance with the spirit and genre that it presents, won't generate action declarations from the players that are radically out-of-context for Alien.​​* Classic Traveller easily generates PCs whose main field of expertise is not fighting, and indeed who are not very impressive physically at all. And this isn't just about "fluff" descriptions - it feeds into the resolution framework. It is not hard to generate a Traveller PC who will fall down unconscious or even dead if shot; who is no match for a leopard in hand-to-hand fighting; etc. This is important for Alien because it means that there are some PCs whose players will recognise that they are no match, in combat, for the Alien. So they will have to run or call for help or something similar.​​* Classic Traveller gives the referee a _lot _of authority to establish the initial fiction. In the context of this particular scenario, it is easy for me as referee to decide that the abandoned ship the PCs are investigating has Aliens on board. It's also easy for me to introduce elements of the framing that give clues and establish the "feel" of the possibility of some sort of "unexpected" threat.​​* Classic Traveller has pretty good rules for determining encounter surprise and encounter range which mean that, _once I decide that the PCs encounter an alien on the ship_, things move out of the realm of GM fiat and into the realm of mechanics. This allows PC expertise to factor in (eg one player had his PC spend money to train in Tactics, which gives her a benefit to avoid surprise), and generally reduces the sense of GM-choosing-to-hose-the-players.​​* Classic Traveller has player-side morale rules, which would help establish some feel, but on this occasion I forgot to use them! It didn't matter because we had fleeing PCs due to rational player choice without the need for any help from the dice!​
> Here's one thing which I think is crucial to Alien but doesn't really have a system element in Classic Traveller to support it: _the PCs split up_.
> 
> <snip>
> ...


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 19, 2021)

TheSword said:


> What an odd comment. More than a little condescending. Is that your intention?



Not at all, I said I wasn't convinced, not that you dont. Nothing in your posts really suggests it, but I'm not going to assume based on that. Pemerton made a bunch of excellent points about agency and system that you just ignored, but that were actually a pretty key part of rhe discussion. 

The division and constraint of agency by different systems is important enough that I'd like to hear your thoughts on it.


----------



## TheSword (Feb 19, 2021)

pemerton said:


> On this I agree with @Fenris-77.
> 
> 
> Here are some reposts that answer that question:



Thank you for the posts, particularly copying them out again for ease of reference.

I think you have identified great elements that would add to the horror of a game.

I would think that the following elements were system agnostic nay?

Communicators
Low power weapons and Armour
Setting the scene
PCs abilities to avoid surprise
I’ve yet to see a game that doesn’t have some form of alertness ability for instance. Again equipment is fairly system agnostic.

Physically weak PCs and the morale system I agree fully. Many systems including 5e are not good at portraying physically or emotionally weak characters. I think there is a reason for this. Probably that players as a general rule don’t really enjoy playing weak characters that die easily or run away. To be honest I don’t really see that as a problem as we very rarely see protagonists in fiction, even action horror fiction run away screaming for help. That is usually left for NPCs. I would distinguish between being weak and running for help as different to tactically trying to avoid a more powerful enemy or achieve a different objective to fighting.

My greatest surprise is that the fiction first element that you have praised so highly isn’t really mentioned at all.


----------



## Campbell (Feb 19, 2021)

I think without direct experience of playing (or especially running) a game like Apocalypse World, Burning Wheel, Dogs in the Vineyard, Hillfolk, Moldvay B/X, Quietus or Sorcerer in the way you are instructed to by those games its almost impossible to fathom just how different play feels from modern D&D. I know really did not understand it.  It's like playing poker when you have only ever played card games where you take tricks. It's like playing Diplomacy when all you have ever played are games where you roll dice to move around a board. It's like playing Among Us when you have only ever played first person shooters.

Take Sorcerer for example. Sorcerer completely does away with the concept of GM prepared story, cooperative play groups, and world building as we think of it. In Sorcerer you start with the characters who have just undergone a dramatic change in their lives and build a cluster of NPCs around each of them. Play revolves around a set of bangs for each character - situations that force a character to act without any regard for how things should resolve themselves. For each session the GM is supposed to prepare a bandoleer of bangs, but keep them in reserve, only pulling them out when needed to keep play interesting. The story of the game is the story of these individual characters striving to cope with dramatic change in their lives. Usually their stories will intersect in some way, but it's not required. Some Sorcerer games will complete with the characters never even meeting. 

Once a character's dramatic life change (called a kicker) is resolved either we develop a new kicker together, they create a new character, or play is done. No prepared story arcs. No plot hooks. No adventures. Just some dynamic characters going through some stuff while summoning demons and stuff.


----------



## chaochou (Feb 19, 2021)

TheSword said:


> I would think that the following elements were system agnostic nay?
> 
> Communicators
> Setting the scene




Absolutely not.

How is a scene set in The Pool? By who? How about Shab al hiri Roach? How about Apocalypse World? In a Wicked Age? Sorceror?

Communicators assume the ability to communicate over distance? Can a player introduce new elements into the game at the point they use a communicator, or can they only talk to GM established things?

As for the 'Alertness' ability - cite me the rules for that in Trollbabe. The Mountain Witch. How is surprise handled in Apocalypse World?


----------



## Campbell (Feb 19, 2021)

Framing scenes or establishing situations is in no way system agnostic. One of most crucial differences between games is what sort of situations the GM or other players are expected to frame, how they go about that process, and what sort of material they should prep.


----------



## TheSword (Feb 19, 2021)

chaochou said:


> Absolutely not.
> 
> How is a scene set in The Pool? By who? How about Shab al hiri Roach? How about Apocalypse World? In a Wicked Age? Sorceror?
> 
> ...



I’m not engaging in discussion regarding games are aren’t even available to buy or in print. If you have to go so avant garde it isn’t even on DTRPG or Amazon marketplace then it’s probably not a good example. I wasn’t willing to pay £75 for the last copy of Sorcerer to find out.


----------



## chaochou (Feb 19, 2021)

TheSword said:


> I’m not engaging in discussion regarding games are aren’t even available to buy or in print. If you have to go so avant garde it isn’t even on DTRPG or Amazon marketplace then it’s probably not a good example. I wasn’t willing to pay £75 for the last copy of Sorcerer to find out.




So you're willing to make claims about things which are 'system agnostic' and then when proven wrong to shift the goalposts to 'RPG systems readily and conveniently available to you'.

Except even that's an attempt to mislead - The Pool is a free download, top result on Google. Apocalypse World is available. Sorcerer is available from the publisher. But you didn't even look, just barfed out the easiest way you could think of to reject the clear evidence that you don't know what you're talking about.

In other words, you've been exposed as making false (and ignorant) claims and you're now sticking your fingers in your ears going 'nah, nah nah, not listening.'


----------



## TheSword (Feb 19, 2021)

chaochou said:


> So you're willing to make claims about things which are 'system agnostic' and then when proven wrong to shift the goalposts to 'RPG systems readily and conveniently available to you'.
> 
> Except even that's an attempt to mislead - The Pool is a free download, top result on Google. Apocalypse World is available. Sorcerer is available from the publisher. But you didn't even look, just barfed out the easiest way you could think of to reject the clear evidence that you don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> In other words, you've been exposed as making false (and ignorant) claims and you're now sticking your fingers in your ears going 'nah, nah nah, not listening.'



No problem. Thanks for sharing. If it’s winding you up, I’ll happily bow out. I don’t believe you’re discussing in good faith. I’ve had more than my two pence on the subject and the goal posts move too fast in this thread.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 19, 2021)

TheSword said:


> Thank you for the posts, particularly copying them out again for ease of reference.
> 
> I think you have identified great elements that would add to the horror of a game.
> 
> ...





chaochou said:


> Absolutely not.
> 
> How is a scene set in The Pool? By who? How about Shab al hiri Roach? How about Apocalypse World? In a Wicked Age? Sorceror?
> 
> ...



To add to some of chaochou's points, plus a few of my own:

* I already posted in a bit of detail the significance of communicators. Talking about equipment as _system agnostic _seems to be confusing _the fiction_ - where a communicator is an easily portable device enabling long-distance talking with people - with _the system_, where a communicator on a PC sheet empowers that player to (depending how it works in system terms) expand the scope of the scene, or activate off-screen assets, etc. In terms of the play it means that the horror of (eg) a PC running screaming from an Alien isn't just something that the other players experience at the table, but is something they can respond to via their action declarations for their own PCs (who hear what is happening over the communicators). That's a difference from a typical splitting of the party in a FRPG.

* To respond to @chaochou's questions, in our Traveller game the PCs can definitely talk to other PCs (including the various quasi-PCs/quasi-NPCs in the PCs' entourage). The can also talk to established NPCs (eg if I describe a starship or satellite, they might declare that they send a communication to it). They can establish new possible targets of communication via appropriate checks (eg Streetwise). And they can do that via consensus - eg in one of our sessions, the PCs were being bombarded from orbit while outside the main inhabited dome, and - one of them being a retired colonel - they called in the planetary airforce to defend them. My memory is that no check was required to establish that the PC knew who to call; I think it's likely that, as normal when the PCs interact with a "new" NPC, a reaction check was called for. In terms of "permissiveness" of the players using the communicators to activate off-screen resources I'd say (on balance) that it's less permissive than MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic, but probably moreso than a D&D-derived sci-fi game would be.

* _Low power weapons and armour_ seems like another case of confusing discussion of the fiction with discussion of the system. The real point here - which overlaps with the point about physically vulnerable PCs - is that some of the players don't have a strong ability to deal with the Alien via physical/hostile moves. That's a system phenomenon. And as I said it's one that D&D isn't generally known for. Part of what makes this feasible in Classic Traveller is that the system supports action resolution (other than GM decides) in a number of fields of endeavour besides fighting (eg dealing with officialdom, and other sorts of social interaction; buying and selling trade goods; piloting space vessels and driving vehicles; operating and repairing technology; etc). It wasn't until our 3rd session of Traveller that we had any combat, but that doesn't mean there was no action or action resolution.

* As for _we very rarely see protagonists in fiction, even action horror fiction run away screaming for help. That is usually left for NPCs. I would distinguish between being weak and running for help as different to tactically trying to avoid a more powerful enemy or achieve a different objective to fighting_, there are some complexities. First, the Alien movies really have only one protagonist, Sigourney Weaver. But a RPG has more than one. Are they all Sigourney? Or are some of them the hangers-on? Second, I'm not really sure that this the claim is true. Sigourney Weaver sometimes runs in the Alien films, and I'm not sure that these are all best analysed as tactical withdrawals. In our Alien session, when the PC Vincenzo ran away from the Alien and escaped via the lift, knowing that his handgun was pretty useless against the creature, it didn't feel inapt or out of place. It felt like the PC was in a panic - which he was - and which seems appropriate for a gritty futuristic sci-fi horror scenario.

* Scene-framing and surprise rules are closely connected, because the latter constrain the GM's authority in respect of the former. As @chaochou has posted, there are plenty of systems that don't use surprise rules. And there are systems that handle surprise very differently from how Traveller does - eg in MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic the GM has to spend a die from the Doom Pool which has to beat any surprise-blocking ability (eg Reflexes or Senses). Classic Traveller, at least as my group plays it which is based on my reading of the rulebooks, allows the referee to decide that an encounter is occurring, and then stipulates that a surprise check is to be made which is modified by Tactics and Leader skill. As I said, I think this worked well in our Alien scenario because it allows the GM to force the players into a confrontation with an Alien, but moderates the extent of unilateral hosing of the players by GM decision-making.

* Classic Traveller is not a fully fiction-first system: consider eg the surprise rules just described. There are similar rules for encounter distance. But the fiction is important to resolution. For instance, my Aliens cause a die of damage on contact with their acidic blood; this is adjudicated by reference to the fiction. The fleeing PC decided to grab a fire extinguisher to use it to neutralise the acid: we resolved him finding an extinguisher on the vessel via a simple check, and then used another check to answer the chemistry question _does the fire-retardant foam neutralise the Alien acid_? (In Apocalypse World or similar these would be answers to a Read a Situation-type check.) I think fiction-first resolution supports gritty horror, because it increases the immediacy. I'm a big fan of 4e D&D, but I wouldn't use it for this sort of horror because once it hits combat - eg an attack by an Alien - it's not fully fiction-first. I don't think MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic would be ideal either, for similar reasons.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 19, 2021)

TheSword said:


> No problem. Thanks for sharing. If it’s winding you up, I’ll happily bow out. I don’t believe you’re discussing in good faith. I’ve had more than my two pence on the subject and the goal posts move too fast in this thread.



If you are curious about games that "aren’t even available to buy," then I can gladly direct you about where to buy some of them.

In a Wicked Age is $5 online.

Apocalypse World 2e is $15 online, though most of the resources are free to download, but you can also download the first edition for free here. Apocalypse World is also on DriveThruRPG, but it's $20 there, so I thought I would at least save you $5.

The Pool is free on DriveThruRPG.

Edit: I am not necessarily recommending that you buy them or even suggesting here that you must buy them to engage in the conversation, but they are available and quite affordable. 

I personally don't think that re-hashing the "agency debate" is the best way to go about this discussion. I think what would perhaps be more illustrative is how two similar enough systems with enough difference can produce different game experiences. For example, I would potentially consider comparing 5e D&D with the Cypher System, as the latter uses a d20 for its resolution system and is still a fairly mainstream game, but the GM doesn't roll, which shifts a number of key aspects of play in regards to the two systems.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 19, 2021)

TheSword said:


> I’m not engaging in discussion regarding games are aren’t even available to buy or in print. If you have to go so avant garde it isn’t even on DTRPG or Amazon marketplace then it’s probably not a good example.



Others have already posted opportunities to acquire a number of these games. To add to the list: you can download the core rules for BW for free here. This will show you what a system looks like that doesn't locate all authority over consequences with the GM.

More generally: if you're not interested in engaging in discussion about RPGs beyond the narrow range you're familiar with, that's your prerogative. But equally, if that's your approach then I don't see how you're going to make serious contributions to a discussion of the ways in which RPG systems are able to deliver different sorts of RPG experiences.


----------



## chaochou (Feb 19, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> If you are curious about games that "aren’t even available to buy," then I can gladly direct you about where to buy some of them.



No, no, no! Don't introduce facts! Don't you understand that if they're not supportive of his position they're not relevant?

Careful now. You'll get accused of not posting in good faith.


----------



## TheSword (Feb 19, 2021)

Thanks but no thanks. Game time is precious and I have to be picky with what it play. I tend to give weight to recommendations based on the spirit in which they’re given. I’m sure they’re very good though.

I did say I was bowing out, but thank you for continuing to try to engage.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 19, 2021)

TheSword said:


> Thanks but no thanks. Game time is precious and I have to be picky with what it play. I tend to give weight to recommendations based on the spirit in which they’re given. I’m sure they’re very good though.



Obviously if there's only one system you're intending to play - 5e D&D or some other RPG with very similar processes of play - then the ways in which _system matters_ won't matter to you.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 19, 2021)

TheSword said:


> Thanks but no thanks. Game time is precious and I have to be picky with what it play. I tend to give weight to recommendations based on the spirit in which they’re given. I’m sure they’re very good though.



I understand your preferences for a certain mode of curated play, which is entirely valid. This is why I would recommend playing Dungeon World at least once, if only so you can see how the system produces a difference in play from what you are used to playing. If not Dungeon World, then possibly Torchbearer, which influenced the creation of Darkest Dungeon. There is also Fate (and Fate Accelerated and Fate Condensed), which is absolutely free on DriveThruRPG. I would also recommend picking up The Book of Hanz, a series of free essays from Fate's Google+ community, which discuss Fate and some of the differences in its game assumptions. Fate is particularly amenable to running one-shots and short campaigns, particularly if your time is precious. 

None of these games may not be to your preference, and I expect that it likely won't be, but there is an invaluable experience in learning through play how different systems have different expectations of play and deliver on that. Personally part of the joy of trying out these different games is that I learn something new about my own game preferences nearly every time I play a new game. Sometimes a mechanic that I disliked in one game becomes highly enjoyable in another.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Feb 19, 2021)

Out of DW and TB I'd probably recommend DW for someone who has played neither. It's got less rules overhead.


----------



## fearsomepirate (Feb 19, 2021)

I think it's hard to really understand how different a system can be without ever interacting with truly different systems.

B/X vs 5e vs 3.5 vs AD&D vs Pathfinder is like arguing over which full-sized pickup truck with which options package is the best, or which fast-food place has the best burgers. You can convert a module from any one of those systems to any of the others, season it with a few house rules, and end up with an experience that plays reasonably similarly.

McDonald's and Jack-in-the-Box are different, really, honest to God. But they're not different from each other the way they're different from that taco truck parked outside the gas station, or the way they're different from a sushi place, or the way they're different from a fancy Italian place with handmade pasta.

I say this as somebody who plays D&D and its clones almost exclusively. I've not got the mental scratch space or the bookshelf space to get invested in something else.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 19, 2021)

Fenris-77 said:


> Out of DW and TB I'd probably recommend DW for someone who has played neither. It's got less rules overhead.



Fair enough point.


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 19, 2021)

fearsomepirate said:


> I think it's hard to really understand how different a system can be without ever interacting with truly different systems.



This.  I had gotten a pretty good theoretical grounding in a lot of the above discussed techniques during the Edition Wars, but it took playing a few sessions of FATE for it to truly make sense.  It's really like having a light bulb go off when it finally clicks.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 19, 2021)

TwoSix said:


> This.  I had gotten a pretty good theoretical grounding in a lot of the above discussed techniques during the Edition Wars, but it took playing a few sessions of FATE for it to truly make sense.  It's really like having a light bulb go off when it finally clicks.



Yup.  I've said it before but I always love a chance to reiterate:

The groking and acceptance/embrace of 4e would have been a different deal if (a) Mouse Guard was released several years before (rather than same year) or Blades/DW had been released before 4e and (b) the D&D cultural collective had played those games and enjoyed them.

At the very least Skill Challenges would have been understood and run proficiently and the uptake of scene-based Dungeons and Dragons wouldn't have been such a hitch.

Dogs would have been fantastic "training wheels", but it was 4 years before 4e and its a different beast than D&D (while MG, DW, BitD are very kindred in multiple ways).


----------



## prabe (Feb 19, 2021)

Manbearcat said:


> Yup.  I've said it before but I always love a chance to reiterate:
> 
> The groking and acceptance/embrace of 4e would have been a different deal if (a) Mouse Guard was released several years before (rather than same year) or Blades/DW had been released before 4e and (b) the D&D cultural collective had played those games and enjoyed them.
> 
> ...



I'm not so sure if a difference in the release dates of the games you mention would have made as much difference in the reception of 4E as you seem to believe. If they'd existed and been accepted and talked about as "something other than D&D" maybe it would have been clear that sort of game design wouldn't fly with D&D players (as D&D) and 4E would have been different, but that's going down a parallel universe rabbit hole.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 19, 2021)

prabe said:


> I'm not so sure if a difference in the release dates of the games you mention would have made as much difference in the reception of 4E as you seem to believe. If they'd existed and been accepted and talked about as "something other than D&D" maybe it would have been clear that sort of game design wouldn't fly with D&D players (as D&D) and 4E would have been different, but that's going down a parallel universe rabbit hole.




See the (b) embedded in the quoted text above


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 19, 2021)

Manbearcat said:


> Yup.  I've said it before but I always love a chance to reiterate:
> 
> The groking and acceptance/embrace of 4e would have been a different deal if (a) Mouse Guard was released several years before (rather than same year) or Blades/DW had been released before 4e and (b) the D&D cultural collective had played those games and enjoyed them.
> 
> ...



Alt-universe, I think they could have snuck in the more Story Now and Fortune-in-the-Middle aspects of 4e if they had kept more of the 3e trappings.  More warblade-y.  I think you can sneak in different techniques to GM-focused play groups with familiar presentation, sort of like introducing vegetables to kids.


----------



## prabe (Feb 19, 2021)

Manbearcat said:


> See the (b) embedded in the quoted text above



Fair enough. I was thinking there's a difference between enjoying, e.g., Mouse Guard, and thinking D&D should play more like Mouse Guard.


----------



## Manbearcat (Feb 19, 2021)

prabe said:


> Fair enough. I was thinking there's a difference between enjoying, e.g., Mouse Guard, and thinking D&D should play more like Mouse Guard.




There is for sure.

My thoughts on this are thus:

1) Despite what some people think is “the soul” of D&D, it’s actually had multiple, distinct instantiations over it’s almost 50 years.

* Though very kindred, OD&D and troupe based, pawn stance Wargaming is distinct from Moldvay Basic Dungeon Crawling.

* Moldvay Basic Dungeon Crawling is distinct from Expert (and on) and 1e Hex Crawling and Sandboxing.

* Expert (and on) and 1e Hex Crawling and Sandboxing is distinct from 2e and 3.x Storyteller/Metaplot/AP play.

* 4e Scene Based, Story Now is distinct from 2e and 3.x Storyteller/Metaplot/AP play.

* 5e is back to the 2e and 3.x Storyteller/Metaplot/AP play.

2) Given that the above is true, the assertion that there is a unifying “soul of D&D” (typically under that 2e/3.x/ 5e Storyteller/Metaplot/AP play) is verifiably not true.

3) If that isn’t true, then what is the nature of “soul of D&D”? Is it the genre/milieu? Is it particular mechanical artifacts? Is it the dungeon? Is it the dragon? Is it the strategic play centered around Adventuring Day vs Loadout and controlling that recharge? Is it compelling combat encounters, puzzles, parlreys, and explorations? Is it player orientation toward PC(s)? Is it play priorities and principles? Is it authority distribution?

Depending upon your edition lens, it’s a different. A moving target. If that’s the case (that D&D has dynamically changed much more than its given credit for), who is to say where the fault line of “lost its soul” lies?


----------



## prabe (Feb 19, 2021)

Manbearcat said:


> My thoughts on this are thus:
> 
> 1) Despite what some people think is “the soul” of D&D, it’s actually had multiple, distinct instantiations over it’s almost 50 years.
> 
> ...



1) My experience is mostly in 1E, 3.x (including PF1E) and 5E. The people I played 1E with, played it in a much more story-oriented way, both before and after 2E was out. I found 3.x to have a similar focus, though the APs weren't anything I ever really engaged with (because published adventures don't make sense to me in my brain) and to me it seemed as though it brought the character build in to D&D, which was something I knew from point-based games like Champions (I gather there are elements of this in late 2E, but ... I never played with those). I've found that 5E has less focus on the character build than 3.x (some people will think this is good, some bad) and unlike 3.x intra-party balance is a thing into the higher levels. The versions I've played had more unity of feel than you seem to ascribe to D&D (possibly because you have experience with editions I don't). Even back in the days of 1E, I was never a huge fan of dungeoncrawls or hexcrawls.

2) Leaving aside the fact I have never played 4E, given that I found there to be more unity in my experiences of D&D prior to 4E, it'd probably be unsurprising if I found a game so radically different from my prior experiences of D&D to be "not-D&D."

3) I wouldn't say D&D has "lost its soul," even when talking about editions not to my taste. For me, D&D has always been about the stories that emerge from play--I'm pretty sure I've said elsewhere the stories that emerge from play are the point of play, and I stand by that. The mechanical artifacts--what I think of as "legacy stuff"--are more about the game always using similar language, even if that language evolves over time (this has me thinking about Chaucer and Middle English and Modern English, but even the more-recent loss of the distinction between _less_ and _fewer_ is an evolution, sort of). I think stories can emerge from play, with ... if not every possible authority distribution, then at least most of the likely ones; I think stories can (and should) include whatever the players (and the DM) find to be compelling at the time--I think the fact that a D&D story (campaign) can shift from (among others) object-quest to mystery to location-defense to special-ops raids is a strength of the game, and something that is missing from the more narrowly-focused games that seem to be indie-darlings: Blades in the Dark seems to me to only want to tell one type of story, as does Apocalypse World. I guess if I were going to say what D&D's soul is, I'd say it's this flexibility.

I don't deny that D&D is (or can be) a moving target. Even 5E alone is, because there is so much room for tables to play it differently--my tables almost certainly run differently than anyone else's--but I think that's a strength of the game, not a weakness (though I'll admit it makes it difficult to talk about the game forensically or analytically). That's most of the reason I've stopped (well, mostly stopped  ) arguing about 5E with people who base their opinions of 5E on the written rules and haven't played it.

I guess D&D is kinda like a shuffle-beat, which ... the line I've heard is that every shuffle-beat is a negotiation between the drummer and the bassist. Every D&D game/table is a negotiation among the people there.


----------



## Campbell (Feb 20, 2021)

@prabe 

When I look at D&D I do not see a less focused game than something like Apocalypse World or Blades in the Dark. I get the idea of the hyper focused indie game, but that's not what I see in something like Apocalypse World. A game like Torchbearer is really specific. I think many D&D fans look at something like Blades and see it as narrow because it's different - not because it's more constrained. 

I think (the royal) you get accustomed to tropes and process of play of something like D&D and that becomes the prism through which you see stories and gaming. That's not a bad thing. You have an approach to play that works for you. I just do not believe it's inherently more flexible.


----------



## prabe (Feb 20, 2021)

Campbell said:


> When I look at D&D I do not see a less focused game than something like Apocalypse World or Blades in the Dark. I get the idea of the hyper focused indie game, but that's not what I see in something like Apocalypse World. A game like Torchbearer is really specific. I think many D&D fans look at something like Blades and see it as narrow because it's different - not because it's more constrained.



I look at Blades in the Dark, and I see a game tightly focused on heists, and on crews advancing. I don't see much in the rules to allow for many other types of stories to emerge.

I look at D&D, and I see a game that does clearly make some presumptions, but seems to allow for more kinds of stories to emerge from play.

It's plausible that this is more about how you and I see the games, than about anything inherent to the games.


Campbell said:


> I think (the royal) you get accustomed to tropes and process of play of something like D&D and that becomes the prism through which you see stories and gaming. That's not a bad thing. You have an approach to play that works for you. I just do not believe it's inherently more flexible.



I do not doubt that comfort level with a game (and with its processes and tropes) can make it seem more flexible than a game one isn't as comfortable with. I kinda envy people whose brains work to allow them to run more than one game at a time; mine doesn't work that way.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 20, 2021)

I agree with @Campbell about the (non-)flexibility of D&D, though am coming at it through a slightly different set of experiences, including no 5e D&D play.

* One example, which has come up in the Worlds of Design: War thread - D&D does not support PCs as warband leaders.

* Another example from a recent thread: D&D has never had decent rules for mounted combat and jousting (I don't know if the Chainmail jousting rules are any good, but anyway I'm not counting them as D&D rules).

* D&D doesn't have very good rules for courting and wooing. Even 4e carves up its skills, like Bluff and Diplomacy, with an eye towards pragmatic/external action-oriented outcomes rather than the realisation of internal passions and commitments.

* D&D has never made it straightforward to adjudicate a Robin Hood/Errol Flynn/Luke Skywalker swing-to-or-from-enemies-on-a-rope. 4e has a discussion of this on p 42 of the DMG, but it's not a core player move - it's one of those "actions the rules don't cover".

* D&D has never had a rule, beyond GM decides, to determine if an imprisoned PC has a key or dagger or similar smuggled in by a secret admirer on the outside.

I could continue, but the things I've mentioned are all pretty basic tropes in the literature from which D&D claims direct inspiration - pulp and romantic adventure stories.


----------



## prabe (Feb 20, 2021)

pemerton said:


> I agree with @Campbell about the (non-)flexibility of D&D, though am coming at it through a slightly different set of experiences, including no 5e D&D play.



{snipped for space; no disrespect intended; I need to figure out how to do this more gracefully}


pemerton said:


> I could continue, but the things I've mentioned are all pretty basic tropes in the literature from which D&D claims direct inspiration - pulp and romantic adventure stories.



I want to start by saying I don't disagree with you that 5E doesn't have great rules--in many cases it has no rules at all--for any of the things you mention. I cannot help but think, though, that you are noticing the lack of rules here because some of the stories you'd like to see emerge in play are dependent on those tropes; I, who have little-to-no interest in Arthurian Romance in TRPGs, haven't noticed a lack of flexibility in re-creating it. As with @Campbell I suspect it's mostly about how we're looking at the games.

(Also, some of your examples could plausibly be hacked by a motivated person--I was turning over how I'd approach hacking jousting this morning in the shower--but I suspect that's less relevant to how you mean "flexibility.")


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 20, 2021)

Campbell said:


> @prabe
> 
> When I look at D&D I do not see a less focused game than something like Apocalypse World or Blades in the Dark. I get the idea of the hyper focused indie game, but that's not what I see in something like Apocalypse World. A game like Torchbearer is really specific. I think many D&D fans look at something like Blades and see it as narrow because it's different - not because it's more constrained.
> 
> I think (the royal) you get accustomed to tropes and process of play of something like D&D and that becomes the prism through which you see stories and gaming. That's not a bad thing. You have an approach to play that works for you. I just do not believe it's inherently more flexible.



I think that it is true that many players of D&D just don't notice the walls, so to speak, but playing both, I'd definitely say that BitD is the more focused of the two, and it while that difference isn't huge, it's also not very discernable.  I'll fully agree that Torchbearer is more focused than either, and I'd say that AW/DW is on par with D&D, in general.


----------



## aramis erak (Feb 21, 2021)

Umbran said:


> So... why are you learning a system like you're studying for an algebra test?
> 
> I ask again - _can you approach it in a way in which it isn't a cost_?



Because no such condition exists. Time is a cost in and of itself. Effort is a cost - in time and calories.


----------



## aramis erak (Feb 21, 2021)

billd91 said:


> Using D&D Beyond may be away around players actually owning the books personally, but it’s not a particularly good argument that D&D doesn‘t encourage owning the rule books.



D&D Basic Rules are available for free as a download; except for the classes and races, and multiclassing, most of the PHB rules content is presend in the PBR.
The DMBR has the encounter balance system, some advice, and the rules secton from the MM, as well as a rather broad subset of the MM entries.

So, no, the core of the game mechanics do NOT require the PHB nor D&D Beyond. Specific races and classes? sure.



Snarf Zagyg said:


> In another thread, I stated that the main issue that many people (such as myself) have with the statement "system matters" is as follows:
> 
> _"System matters" inevitably means that because it matters, some systems are better than others, and let me tell you why these systems are better ...._
> 
> ...



There are systems that are quantitatively better in that they are easier to understand and not filled with toxic antisocial ideals... (EG: Just about anything is better than FATAL, even the 20+ typos per page of Road Rebels... At least RR isn't encouraging a mindset where raping and sexual vioence are fetured parts of the almost indecipherably bad except for the tables rulesets; FATAL is literally built to be able to provide detailed results of PC's raping and being raped. 

A game that is hard to understand, or which is filled with vileness, is objectively not a good game. As is one with rules that don't provide enough to actually grasp the mechanics.


pemerton said:


> _Better_ in this context obviously is relative to some goal. I've spelled some of that out in my post and implied more.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> ...




Nothing ironic about it at all... 
I'm minded of a bloke who posts over on RPGG a lot. He doesn't understand why RPGs work for other people, and he has hated every RPG ruleset he's used. He also gets hostile when people suggest maybe he needs to find a different hobby... 

And yes, better is relative... but certain measures (intelligibility) are objective. FATAL, for example, is not the worst written game I've seen from a technical standpoint, but it makes Kevin Siebieda before the spellchecker look competent. It's objectively mediocre _as a ruleset_ because it is unclear. It's also so toxic even Pundit avoids saying anything nice about it, but that is a subjective measure.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 21, 2021)

aramis erak said:


> And yes, better is relative... but certain measures (intelligibility) are objective. FATAL, for example, is not the worst written game I've seen from a technical standpoint, but it makes Kevin Siebieda before the spellchecker look competent. It's objectively mediocre _as a ruleset_ because it is unclear. It's also so toxic even Pundit avoids saying anything nice about it, but that is a subjective measure.



Are you kidding?  F.A.T.A.L. is "the most difficult, detailed, realistic, and historically/mythically accurate role-playing game available."  Who said that?  It's right there in the book and they couldn't publish that if it weren't true.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 21, 2021)

aramis erak said:


> Because no such condition exists. Time is a cost in and of itself. Effort is a cost - in time and calories.




How to say this - for a gamer, you aren't being very imaginative.  Yes, if you insist on thinking that learning the system is about sitting and spending time reading a book, then there's just a cost.

What if learning the system _was an act of play_?  You _wanted_ to spend time playing, right?  So, we aren't paying any costs that you weren't already planning to spend, dong things that you wanted to do.  This means that learning the system isn't a cost you have to spend before you get any payback for it.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 21, 2021)

Umbran said:


> How to say this - for a gamer, you aren't being very imaginative. Yes, if you insist on thinking that learning the system is about sitting and spending time reading a book, then there's just a cost.



Of course it's not about sitting and spending time to read a book.  But whether you view it as play time or something else, there's no getting away from the cost involved in sitting and taking the time to read it.  I was happy to read the latest version of Deadlands when I downloaded the PDF.  I paid the price, time, gladly but it was still a cost.  



Umbran said:


> What if learning the system _was an act of play_? You _wanted_ to spend time playing, right? So, we aren't paying any costs that you weren't already planning to spend, dong things that you wanted to do. This means that learning the system isn't a cost you have to spend before you get any payback for it.




There's a cost to all hobbies though we don't often think about them.  I like to paint miniatures (most of the time).  I find it relaxing (except for those times it becomes tedious and frustrating), I'm often inspired to create new NPCs based on the models I'm working on, and having painted miniatures really enhances the experience when playing games like Savage Worlds and D&D.  When I'm painting miniatures, I'm doing something I _want_ to do (most of the time) but despite my enjoyment there are still various costs including money, time, and my sanity (why #$%## is my airbrush clogged again). Time and effort is always a cost even when you're happy to pay it.


----------



## Campbell (Feb 21, 2021)

At a microcon a couple weeks a go (everyone was tested and had to quaratine) I played in one shot of the new Deadlands and another one shot of Pasión de las Pasiones. I had never played either. For Deadlands one shot we had several folks who never had played Savage Worlds before. No one at the table besides the GM has played Pasión de las Pasiones. In a 5 person game I was the only player that had previous Powered by the Apocalypse experience.  We just sat down and played. For Deadlands we each picked archetypes like cards out of a deck. Setup for Pasión de las Pasiones took about 30 minutes (and was mostly narrative), about the same amount of time Masks takes with people who know the game. Learning new games as a GM definitely takes time, but as player does not have to involve much of a time investment. Especially for lighter games.
.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 21, 2021)

MGibster said:


> Of course it's not about sitting and spending time to read a book.  But whether you view it as play time or something else, there's no getting away from the cost involved in sitting and taking the time to read it.




So... for the past two campaigns I ran (Deadlands and Ashen Stars) the players didn't own the rulebooks.  They didn't sit and read them to learn the rules.  But, they got to know the system just fine.

We are talking about the cost that is a barrier to entry to play.  I play D&D because I know it, and I avoid playing some other game because I would have to learn it _BEFORE_ I can play it.

If you can get a person into an act of entertaining play without that initial cost the "cost as barrier to entry" no longer applies.  You are at the table, playing a RPG, without having spent a major cost learning.


----------



## MGibster (Feb 21, 2021)

Umbran said:


> So... for the past two campaigns I ran (Deadlands and Ashen Stars) the players didn't own the rulebooks. They didn't sit and read them to learn the rules. But, they got to know the system just fine.



It's always nice to meet someone else who enjoys running Deadlands.  So from one marshal to another, here's hoping you never find a burr under your saddle and the posse doesn't murder your finely crafted abomination on the first turn before it can act.


----------



## aramis erak (Feb 21, 2021)

Umbran said:


> How to say this - for a gamer, you aren't being very imaginative.  Yes, if you insist on thinking that learning the system is about sitting and spending time reading a book, then there's just a cost.
> 
> What if learning the system _was an act of play_?  You _wanted_ to spend time playing, right?  So, we aren't paying any costs that you weren't already planning to spend, dong things that you wanted to do.  This means that learning the system isn't a cost you have to spend before you get any payback for it.



Enjoyment is a benefit; it is not without cost. As a man with too many hobbies, all of them are subject to cost/benefit analysis.

No, I'm not an economist, but one of my closest friends is.


----------



## aramis erak (Feb 21, 2021)

prabe said:


> I think it means "both" and "it depends."
> 
> Obviously, to someone who wants a specific type of story to emerge from play, and wants to play a game made to generate that type of story, system matters a lot. They want to use BitD to tell Leverage-esque heist stories, and Dread to tell looming inevitable doom horror stories (as I understand Dread, anyway), and OSR or actual old D&D to do dungeoncrawls.
> 
> ...



I've seen people try to play Traveller using AD&D character mechanics. And then seen them use that to justify saying "Traveller Sucks!" 

And I've seen both Star Trek and Star Wars done in Traveller (classic and mega) with only trivial modifications t the character rules, and adjusting the ship travel mechanics. (The NCC-1701 is about 17 kTd, with 6x50 Td 


prabe said:


> Or if it's a longstanding group you try new systems on like clothes. Something fits, or it doesn't.
> 
> (A different approach, I think both are plausibly correct.)



Or you offer a game, and see who's interested.


Campbell said:


> From my perspective the difference between roleplaying games, at least one that are not as similar as say D&D, Pathfinder, Shadow of the Demon Lord and Warhammer is not like the difference between different types of automobiles where one is a comparable replacement. It's more like Risk and Monopoly or Poker and Spades. Playing different games provides an experience that you will never reliably experience in somebody's D&D game without altering the process of play.
> 
> Modern D&D is not some middle point. It's a specific game experience that is finely tuned to deliver compelling play to people that want that experience. That's a lot of people in modern D&D's case.



Actually, it's _very much _a middle ground - that's the natural and expected result of a process of design whch puts up every decision for public vote. 
Progression towards the mean is inherent in democratized processes.


Neonchameleon said:


> I'm going to only disagree on a technicality here. I'd call 5e intentionally pretty loosely tuned. It's _intended _to be a game that's driftable and intended to be a game that's never a bad one for anything you'd want to do something you'd use D&D for. The goal is breadth rather than focus.



QFT. But note that it also was intended to be good enough for as many as possible, and written in a clear and easily read style. It's less precise than Moldvay, but 6th, 7th, and 8th graders can read and run it. Without having adult help. I've had a number of middle school kids (7 or 8) show up at AL tables, noting they have yet to actually play, but have read the rules, and the only things I had to coach them on were what AL allowed, as they'd not read the AL season rules.



TwoSix said:


> Especially if you went with your free coupons from reading lots of books.



That really started after I graduated in my home school district. My daughters got a number, tho'.


Ovinomancer said:


> It is not possible to run a gritty futuristic sci-fi horror game with 5e, though.  To do so, you have to make changes to the system or outright ignore the system adhoc.  5e cannot do gritty futuristic sci-fi horror.  Some other system you've _modified _from 5e might do it, to varying degrees of success.



If that futuristic horror doesn't require spaceships, there are zap guns and fear rules in the 5E DMG.
Fear on DMG 266. Laser Pistol, Laser Rifle, and Antimatter Rifle, DMG 268.
If you're going to claim a game can't do X, at least be smart enough to check all the core books.


Ovinomancer said:


> Saying this without evidence is just handwaving.
> 
> Show me, using the PHB, how I would run a computer hacking against a pervasive, mind altering AI consciousness in VR.
> 
> ...



Or just treating cyberspace as equivalent to the astral plane, and using the magic item rules to access it. The rules need not change mechanics, only the labels and descriptions. Go read DMG chapter 9, which said, the DMG is part of the core rules, and exculding it from consideration is, bluntly,  violation of common decency in discussion. It's like asking for the Starship Combat Rules in Classic _Traveller Book 1: Characters and Combat _... they're in B_ook 2: Starships_.


Fenris-77 said:


> I tend to call the one thing an engine and the other a system. The D&D engine is very flexible while the system isn't. To play sci fi successfully you'd need a different system wrapped around the engine.



A good distinction, but, in the case of 5E Core Rules


Manbearcat said:


> Yup.  This is a huge deal.  We talk about authority distribution all the time (and, while certainly related, they aren't exactly the same), but the expectation of how the collective energy is distributed is equally important.
> 
> Then (after expectation is established) we can talk about procedurally how to orient toward energy distribution parity (which is, in part, about authority).




Sharing the spotlight is the more conventional term... and it's something few games mechanically address. (The few I've seen are _Houses of the Blooded_, _Blood and Honor_, and _Burning Empires_. HotB and B&H, because they resolve narrative authority, not success, and thus the management of who is in the spotlight naturally by the narration control mechanism. Burning Empires has scene budgets, with each player getting a set number of scenes of specific types each session. A few attempt to do so via rigid turn structures - _Sentinel Comics, FFG Star Wars, Modiphius' Dune: Adventures in the Imperium, __Marvel Heroc Roleplaying_ and  dozen others, where the design is equal numbers of turns, not equal spotlight time, nor equal story involvement. 



Aldarc said:


> It's hard to imagine that the OSR would have any of the momentum or legs to stand on that it did if simply having six attributes and a d20 resolution system was all it takes to be the same system as the WotC era of D&D.



But does it really have a large momentum? Or is it just highly visible? 

Personally, I suspect a small amount of momentum across a very loud, proud, and prolific, but fairly small, and highly over-represented online, minority. If they really had been a majority, they'd have dominated the 5E development feedback. The vote totals don't support that contention.



MichaelSomething said:


> Who needs Tales of Equrestria when there's Ponyfinder!!



Me.  ToE's rules do Equestria as in FIM. Ponyfinder does something... darker. It also doesn't use a system I find worth my time to run. (Not saying PF is bad; I am saying, quite emphatically, I don't like it.)



TheSword said:


> I’m not engaging in discussion regarding games are aren’t even available to buy or in print. If you have to go so avant garde it isn’t even on DTRPG or Amazon marketplace then it’s probably not a good example. I wasn’t willing to pay £75 for the last copy of Sorcerer to find out.



The thing is, Storygames tend to be sold from their developer's website, and/or  on Indie Press Revolution.
BullyPulpitgames.com has Shab Al-Hiri Roach, Fiasco, Grey Ranks, and The Warren available.
Fiasco is to the Storygames movement as Mentzer D&D is to the D&D family... it's the common point of entry, not the first, but definitely very well known, widely played, and very well respected. 
Sorcerer is still in print, too. My FLGS sold one a couple months ago as a special order.



Lanefan said:


> Cool, that was about my guess as well but nice to have it confirmed from someone who knows this stuff.
> 
> And that's my point: I'd prefer a game be written to that Grade 12/1st-year college level as it'll then at least give me a first impression of not having been dumbed down.
> 
> I guess I've just never seen D&D as a kids game, though it seems many here started playing quite young.



AD&D suffered because of it. Gygaxian spew obfuscated rules, and made the game harder to learn; it lead to a whole lot of misunderstood, ignored, and/or misused rules. Gygax very likely held back D&D as much as helping it. I know that 2E was much easier for me to use, and for new players. Like Moldvay, it was written at a 9th grade reading level. (For reference, most newspapers tended to write to a 7th or 8th grade reading level in the US, until the 21st C, when they lost their younger readership to the Net.)


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 21, 2021)

aramis erak said:


> If that futuristic horror doesn't require spaceships, there are zap guns and fear rules in the 5E DMG.
> Fear on DMG 266. Laser Pistol, Laser Rifle, and Antimatter Rifle, DMG 268.
> If you're going to claim a game can't do X, at least be smart enough to check all the core books.



Is this serious?  Neither of thise is necessary nor sufficient to get to gfsfh.  Alien didn't have zap guns, and the fear mechanic in the dmg does not evoke horror just by it's inclusion.

This also ignores that it's not real gfsfh whe Bob uses his zap gun and Page casts Banishment.

By the by, I was well aware of those optional rules, and was anticipating they'd be brought up.


> Or just treating cyberspace as equivalent to the astral plane, and using the magic item rules to access it. The rules need not change mechanics, only the labels and descriptions. Go read DMG chapter 9, which said, the DMG is part of the core rules, and exculding it from consideration is, bluntly,  violation of common decency in discussion. It's like asking for the Starship Combat Rules in Classic _Traveller Book 1: Characters and Combat _... they're in B_ook 2: Starships_.



Putting aside "use a different plane" doesn't really cover how a cyberscape interacts with the real or that there are no "magic item rules" that cover this, you're actually making my point here:  you have to either rewrite the system or ignore it to acheive the outcome.  And, at either end, you're not playing 5e anymore, but rather some other system.  Related, sure, but not 5e.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 21, 2021)

aramis erak said:


> Enjoyment is a benefit; it is not without cost.




The point is that you reduce, or completely eliminate the _extra_ cost of picking up a new system.  

Why are you fixated on the point that a cost exists, in general, when I am talking about reducing the extra cost one option has?


----------



## dragoner (Feb 21, 2021)

aramis erak said:


> Or you offer a game, and see who's interested.



Which is how our club does it, we also switch out members between groups, so that a broader general interest can be generated.

In general to the op:
IMO, the thing about rules such as Book 2: Starships type rules for games, are that #1 they have to exist, nobody can play rules that don't exist, so that system has to matter there. #2 is about how good are those rules? It's like Ken Kesey talking about bad art having no place in a free society; it is the great filter at work.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 23, 2021)

This video essay is actually not about D&D, but, rather, about World of Warcraft entitled "Why you CANNOT kill World of Warcraft." In many respects, this video speaks to a variety of different things that have been brought up in this thread (and in @Snarf Zagyg's off-shoot Cheesecake Factory one) about D&D, system matters, sunk cost fallacy (somewhat), and WoW as a game with its own culture or a brand with a story. One of the points brought up in this video is that even if someone came out with an "objectively better designed game" than WoW - in so far as one can claim such a thing - there is so much cultural and capital momentum behind WoW that the "better game" can mostly hope to be a successful niche game with a healthy population rather than a "WoW Killer."* This is not to say that WoW is a badly designed game or that it's not a good game, but that it had a number of system, historical, and cultural factors that not only made it a hit but also kept it as one. 

* Incidentally, I think that some of the best MMORPGs out there today are the ones that didn't aim to be "WoW Killers," market themselves as such, or what have you, but had a clear and unique vision for its game.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Feb 23, 2021)

Aldarc said:


> This video essay is actually not about D&D, but, rather, about World of Warcraft entitled "Why you CANNOT kill World of Warcraft." In many respects, this video speaks to a variety of different things that have been brought up in this thread (and in @Snarf Zagyg's off-shoot Cheesecake Factory one) about D&D, system matters, sunk cost fallacy (somewhat), and WoW as a game with its own culture or a brand with a story. One of the points brought up in this video is that even if someone came out with an "objectively better designed game" than WoW - in so far as one can claim such a thing - there is so much cultural and capital momentum behind WoW that the "better game" can mostly hope to be a successful niche game with a healthy population rather than a "WoW Killer."* This is not to say that WoW is a badly designed game or that it's not a good game, but that it had a number of system, historical, and cultural factors that not only made it a hit but also kept it as one.
> 
> * Incidentally, I think that some of the best MMORPGs out there today are the ones that didn't aim to be "WoW Killers," market themselves as such, or what have you, but had a clear and unique vision for its game.




There are two separate, but interrelated, issues:

The first is path dependency. For those not familiar with it, the easiest way to explain it is, for example, the internal combustion engine and automobiles. If you were designing a transportation system, from scratch, today, you could probably think of a lot of better ways to do it than to use cars (that require pavement, highways, parking, etc., that all require maintenance) and gas-powered ICE (that comes with its own issues). However, once you start down that path, it becomes harder and harder to switch; the transaction costs to switching to something "better" are so high, that it is very very difficult to do so, even though it might not have been the optimal choice if starting from scratch. It's not enough for something to be better- it has to be really, really, really better. If that example doesn't work for you, think about why we aren't all using the DVORAK keyboard. 

The second is that people often misunderstand what really matters when it comes to design. There are innumerable examples of "better" products losing out in the market place because the designers (engineers, artists, product managers) didn't take into account what matters to the consumers. The classic example is the VHS/Betamax battle; Betamax (by Sony) was first to the market, and superior in technology. But it lost the format war. Why? Three reasons (more or less). VHS concentrated on length- so it could show a full movie before the early Betamax movies could. JVC sought out the rental market, while Sony did not (and people wanted to rent movies). And finally, JVC licensed its technology to other makers before Sony would. So while Sony concentrated on the aspects of design that they were sure would matter (picture and sound quality) they were destroyed in the marketplace because consumers had different interests; in short, they weren't engineers.

Not to echo that phrase ("system matters") but what _matters _to people can be very idiosyncratic. It is interesting that 5e is widely considered successful- maybe the most successful D&D edition launch - and that 5e went through extensive player testing and feedback (and because it's D&D, it was able to get a larger group for that than any other RPG can dream of). In other words, instead of insisting on what type of rules and lore the consumers would love because it was the right one, they took the safer approach of tailoring the game to what consumers revealed as their actual preferences.


----------



## dragoner (Feb 23, 2021)

To use a chess term: "what is the endgame?" Personal preference is real, and largely outside the system matters debate. Such as for fantasy, I prefer Mythras over 5e, except I have played more 5e, and spent more on 5e. The reasons why I like Mythras are largely irrelevant, as it goes back to personal preference, and the reasons I play and have bought a bunch of 5e stuff isn't about the system at all; so still irrelevant to system matters. The endgame here appears to be that system matters when choosing a genre, such as sci-fi or fantasy, and then some details within that choice, afterwards it is personal preference.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 23, 2021)

dragoner said:


> To use a chess term: "what is the endgame?" Personal preference is real, and largely outside the system matters debate.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The endgame here appears to be that system matters when choosing a genre, such as sci-fi or fantasy, and then some details within that choice, afterwards it is personal preference.



For me, the slogan _system matters_ is an injunction to think seriously about the processes of play, and how they interact with the mechanics, in order to do a good job as a GM. Conversely, if there are aspects of play that seem like they could be improved, _system matters_ tells me how to think about diagnosing problems and fixing them.


----------



## dragoner (Feb 23, 2021)

pemerton said:


> For me, the slogan _system matters_ is an injunction to think seriously about the processes of play, and how they interact with the mechanics, in order to do a good job as a GM. Conversely, if there are aspects of play that seem like they could be improved, _system matters_ tells me how to think about diagnosing problems and fixing them.



Though we both know that a good GM can make a bad system great. GM'ing is a lot like an art, and I am saying that as a GM who is fully recognizing some cringe moments of my own GM'ing. It is a large part of why I read these threads is to try to improve. Some systems may have better advice, except if unheeded or misunderstood, the effect is the same.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 23, 2021)

dragoner said:


> Though we both know that a good GM can make a bad system great. GM'ing is a lot like an art, and I am saying that as a GM who is fully recognizing some cringe moments of my own GM'ing. It is a large part of why I read these threads is to try to improve. Some systems may have better advice, except if unheeded or misunderstood, the effect is the same.



I don't know this.  I know that a GM can ignore or change a bad system and make a game that some (many?) player will enjoy anyway, but this is just subbing in a different system and argues system matters.  GM says is a system, too.  But a bad system leads to poor outcomes, if used..


----------



## dragoner (Feb 23, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> I don't know this.  I know that a GM can ignore or change a bad system and make a game that some (many?) player will enjoy anyway, but this is just subbing in a different system and argues system matters.  GM says is a system, too.  But a bad system leads to poor outcomes, if used..



It also simultaneously argues that system doesn't matter. It is the falsifiability that is lacking in the system preference mode. Good players count too, and it is also about what people are looking for out of the game as a group, a whole synthetic relationship. More concrete examples would be better.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 23, 2021)

dragoner said:


> Though we both know that a good GM can make a bad system great. GM'ing is a lot like an art, and I am saying that as a GM who is fully recognizing some cringe moments of my own GM'ing. It is a large part of why I read these threads is to try to improve. Some systems may have better advice, except if unheeded or misunderstood, the effect is the same.



I think we're a bit at cross-purposes here. I'm not referring to system advice. I'm meaning - to use a metaphor - _knowing the moving parts of the system_. And understanding how they affect the play experience.


----------



## dragoner (Feb 23, 2021)

pemerton said:


> I think we're a bit at cross-purposes here. I'm not referring to system advice. I'm meaning - to use a metaphor - _knowing the moving parts of the system_. And understanding how they affect the play experience.



That sounds like that is on the GM, unless you are arguing for rules light systems?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Feb 23, 2021)

dragoner said:


> It also simultaneously argues that system doesn't matter. It is the falsifiability that is lacking in the system preference mode. Good players count too, and it is also about what people are looking for out of the game as a group, a whole synthetic relationship. More concrete examples would be better.



How does it argue that?  The GM doing things by fiat is absolutely a system.  One I'm not at all fond of, but tastes vary and that's fine.

Curiously, have you played a game outside if one that's seats the GM as arbiter of all rules and source of all serting?


----------



## dragoner (Feb 24, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> How does it argue that?  The GM doing things by fiat is absolutely a system.  One I'm not at all fond of, but tastes vary and that's fine.
> 
> Curiously, have you played a game outside if one that's seats the GM as arbiter of all rules and source of all serting?



Is it a system? I think it is more like a number line, some systems require it more than others. I have played in GM-less games, though I found that they were a lot like GM'd games, except where one player was more the leader. Which are great games, except we usually do more traditional rpg's for multiple sessions.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 24, 2021)

dragoner said:


> That sounds like that is on the GM, unless you are arguing for rules light systems?



I'm not 100% sure what you mean by _that's on the GM_ - maybe I agree, because upthread I talked about _doing a good job as GM_.

But to try to explain what I mean, I'll point to the earlier discussion in this thread about running a gritty futuristic sci-fi horror scenario. Part of any system that is likely to be used for this is the possibility of players "expanding" or "breaking out of" the GM's framed scene by having their PCs use communicators to speak to other characters (be those PCs not yet in the scene, or NPCs). So part of being a good GM in this case is thinking about how to respond to that player capability.

Whereas that's not something I have to think about when GMing Prince Valiant or 4e D&D.


----------



## dragoner (Feb 24, 2021)

pemerton said:


> I'm not 100% sure what you mean by _that's on the GM_ - maybe I agree, because upthread I talked about _doing a good job as GM_.
> 
> But to try to explain what I mean, I'll point to the earlier discussion in this thread about running a gritty futuristic sci-fi horror scenario. Part of any system that is likely to be used for this is the possibility of players "expanding" or "breaking out of" the GM's framed scene by having their PCs use communicators to speak to other characters (be those PCs not yet in the scene, or NPCs). So part of being a good GM in this case is thinking about how to respond to that player capability.
> 
> Whereas that's not something I have to think about when GMing Prince Valiant or 4e D&D.



Which I agree with 100%, except that is what I think of more as a genre choice. Would you say that having some sort of system mastery is part of being a good GM?


----------



## Campbell (Feb 24, 2021)

System as defined in the System Matters essay is talking about the actual process of play. It includes the division of roles between the players (authorities and responsibilities). It includes how scenarios are designed, the sort of character players are supposed play, what the goals of play are, etc. It's a lot more than just genre. It's also more than advice. It's process/instructions.

The central conceit of the essay is that the process of play should be designed - that play should be done with intent rather than on an ad hoc basis. That changing the process of play is an act of game design and should be treated with the weight of a design decision. Basically treating RPGs the same we would any other game. You do not have to play the game as designed, but you should know when you are breaking that and changes to the game as designed should be somewhat transparent to all participants. People should know what they are agreeing to play.


----------



## dragoner (Feb 24, 2021)

Yes, except when talking about the process, and mechanics, it is about personal preference as well as to what the "endgame" is. Which in turn can sort of falsify the system matters argument, at least in the scientific sense. There could be concrete examples either way, such as the use of communicators not being there in Prince Valiant.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 24, 2021)

_What I want to get out this episode of RPGing_ is a preference.

_What techniques, processes of play, resolution methods, etc will achieve that preference _is not primarily a matter of preference. Like any other question of _means to ends _it's about cause-and-effect relationships.

In the context of RPGing, those cause-and-effect relationships are fairly complicated, and not all of them are under the control of the participants. (Eg most people can't control their personality, except within very narrow limits.) A fortiori not all of them are under the control of the GM.

But to go tack to the example of a gritty futuristic sci-fi horror scenario, here are some relevant cause-and-effect relationships:

* If everything is decided by GM fiat, and some of that involves PCs being attacked by or even eaten by Aliens, the players may feel they've been hosed by the GM;

* If the players have an unlimited depth of resources, including by having their PCs call in assistance via their communicators, the horror and maybe also the grittiness will be undermined;

* Related to the previous point, if the players do not fear their PCs' encounter(s) with the Alien(s), the horror and grittiness will be undermined;

* If the challenge posed by the Aliens becomes primarily a tactical one, the grittiness might be preserved but we're no longer doing horror.​
These are all system things. Some systems give the GM extreme authority over framing; some give the players a lot of de facto authority over framing (eg the role of _detection_ magic in classic D&D, or of similar psionic abilities in some sci-fi games); some make at least aspects of framing a matter for surprise mechanics; etc.

Different systems give the players different degrees of ability to establish and leverage "off screen" resources. Thinking of this primarily through the lens of _genre_ (eg sci-fi PCs have access to communicators) tends to obscure the practical RPGing issue, which is about the interplay between the established fiction, the implicit fiction, and player authority.

The "feel" of encounters between PCs and hostile creatures will be affected by how things are framed, what resources the players have access to, and how resolution works. For instance, if shooting and biting and the like have a strong "sudden death" aspect to them, and if retreating is low-cost in terms of player resources, the likelihood of such encounters - once framed - turning tactical is reduced. To name specific RPGs, Classic Traveller produces a very different result here from 4e D&D.

These are the sorts of things I have in mind when I say that _system matters_.


----------



## dragoner (Feb 24, 2021)

I don't necessarily disagree with any of that, and in fact agree with it, system can indeed matter depending on what one wants. Note that I am avoiding the GNS argument from the OP as well. The thing is that when looking at the situation from the perspective of Karl Popper's principle of falsifiability:

Falsifiability - Karl Popper's Basic Scientific Principle 

_"The idea is that no theory is completely correct, but if it can be shown both to be falsifiable and supported with evidence that shows it's true, it can be accepted as truth."_

Such as fighting with Cthulhu mythos creatures from Deities and Demigods using AD&D was very different than playing CoC. I mean we actively felt we would defeat the mythos creatures in AD&D, and knew that with CoC we would die or go insane.

Classic Traveller could be odd, in that some people played it with characters as disposable, which isn't necessarily how I played it. Early D&D as well, could be very deadly, if you played it that way. Except there is a preferential playstyle there, playing very deadly or not.

That sort of bleeds into the second issue of what system someone originally played affecting their playstyle. The answer can be yes, except that people can learn something different. Depends on their preference if they want something different or want something the same. Which in that endgame, it is cool, do what you like.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 24, 2021)

dragoner said:
			
		

> Yes, except when talking about the process, and mechanics, it is about personal preference as well as to what the "endgame" is. Which in turn can sort of falsify the system matters argument, at least in the scientific sense.





			
				dragoner said:
			
		

> I don't necessarily disagree with any of that, and in fact agree with it, system can indeed matter depending on what one wants. Note that I am avoiding the GNS argument from the OP as well. The thing is that when looking at the situation from the perspective of Karl Popper's principle of falsifiability:
> 
> Falsifiability - Karl Popper's Basic Scientific Principle
> 
> _"The idea is that no theory is completely correct, but if it can be shown both to be falsifiable and supported with evidence that shows it's true, it can be accepted as truth."_



I'm familiar with Popper's notion of falsifiability, although the quote you have provided isn't quite accurate - Popper does not think there is such a thing as _a theory being supported with evidence_, because he is a sceptic about induction (basically on Humean grounds) and so denies that any finite set of consistent data-points can support the truth of a universal generalisation. He thus adopts falsifiability as a non-induction-dependent principle for the formation of scientific knowledge.

As an account of the formation of scientific knowledge, I don't agree with Popper's notion - basically for the reasons put forward by AJ Ayer. But in any event _system matters_ isn't a scientific theory of anything, any more than would be a painter's claim that _brushes matter_ or _oil vs watercolour vs acrylic matters_. It's not a theory, it's just an assertion. And if the question is _is "system matters" a falsifiable assertion_, the answer is _yes_. It would certainly be refuted by showing that no change in processes, techniques and/or mechanics of play was ever associated with a change in RPGing experience. And it would arguably be refuted if the changes in experience associated with changes in processes, techniques and/or mechanics were arbitrary or unpredictable.

But as it happens the evidence that changes in the processes, techniques and/or mechanics of play produce broadly predictable changes in the RPGing experience is overwhelming. The evidence I have in mind is both evidence from my own experience, and evidence from others' posting. I'm not going to try and rehearse all that evidence in this post, but here is the single clearest bit of it that I know: in an essay written in 2003, about 5 years before 4e D&D was published, Ron Edwards identified virtually all of the features of the 4e system that would make it so controversial among a wide number of RPGers who were looking for a play experience different from the one delivered by 4e:


Common use of player Author Stance (Pawn or non-Pawn) to set up the arena for conflict. This isn't an issue of whether Author (or any) Stance is employed at all, but rather when and for what.
Fortune-in-the-middle during resolution, to whatever degree - the point is that Exploration as such can be deferred, rather than established at every point during play in a linear fashion.
More generally, Exploration overall is negotiated in a casual fashion through ongoing dialogue, using system for input (which may be constraining), rather than explicitly delivered by system per se.

(By _exploration_ Edwards means _establishing the content of the shared fiction_. In his essay Edwards describes these three features as departures from "Simulationist-facilitating design" - whether his label is the best one, or an accurate one, doesn't change the fact that these are design features that are not typical in systems like RQ and RM, were not present in most of the mechanical features that 3E D&D added to AD&D, and where they remain in D&D are treated as embarrassments rather than embraced by many D&D players.)



			
				dragoner said:
			
		

> Classic Traveller could be odd, in that some people played it with characters as disposable, which isn't necessarily how I played it. Early D&D as well, could be very deadly, if you played it that way.



If you look at the play of tables that treat PCs as disposable, and those that don't, I think there is a reasonable chance that you will see them adopting different expectations about, and practices in respect of, the processes of play - eg who exercises what sort of control over certain key aspects of the shared fiction. One point at which you would expect to see those differences is at the point of introducing new PCs into the immediate situation. But I think you might expect to see it at other points also.



			
				dragoner said:
			
		

> That sort of bleeds into the second issue of what system someone originally played affecting their playstyle. The answer can be yes, except that people can learn something different.



I agree that this is a different topic - a _second issue_ - from the one addressed by the phrase _system matters_ as coined by Ron Edwards, although as the Peterson blog notes it's a topic on which Edwards also expressed a view.

I would say that there is strong evidence that many RPGers, who are very familiar with one particular set of processes, techniques and mechanics and who have little exposure to other such sets, can struggle to understand how those others are used to produce satisfactory RPGing experiences. Again, I'm not going to rehearse all the evidence but here are a couple of choice examples:

* The Alexandrian notoriously characterised 4e D&D as a skirmish miniatures game punctuated by improv storytelling. This suggests an inability to appreciate how RPGs work that exemplify the second two of the dot points I quoted above: he can't tell the difference between (i) improv storytelling, and (ii) RPGing that uses FitM techniques and uses system to constrain but not deliver the shared fiction (this would include not only 4e D&D but Over the Edge, Maelstrom Storytelling, HeroWars/Quest, much of PbtA, and interestingly enough some elements of Classic Traveller like the rules for performing difficult manoeuvres in a vacc suit).​​* On ENWorld, if you start talking about a RPG in which the content of the shared fiction is systematically shaped by player action declarations in ways that go beyond _the immediate causal impact of the PC on his/her immediate environment_ (eg the question _is X present in the PC's immediate environment _is settled by the result of a _Do I notice/encounter X? _check made by the player) you will almost certainly have one or more posters respond by talking about _Schroedinger's X_. They will find it very hard to comprehend that the shared fiction in a RPG might be established in a different way from _GM decides_ and that the orientation of the participants to that fiction might be different from _the players' goal is to learn what the GM has decided the shared fiction shall be_. And if the discussion continues for more than a post or two, it is almost certain that the unfamiliar technique will be described by the incredulous poster as if it were no different from improv storytelling.​
Notice that the evidence I am adducing is _not_ of bloggers or posters expressing their own preferences (eg for non-FitM mechanics, or for GM-driven RPGing). Rather, it is an apparent inability to appreciate that other approaches to RPGing might deliver an experience that is recognisably RPGing rather than simply improv storytelling.

Notice also that the tendencies I've just described exits notwithstanding that some relatively early RPGs contain elements that exemplify FitM resolution (eg the Classic Traveller vacc suit rules I already mentioned) and contain the use of _Do I notice/encounter X? _checks to determine whether or not X is part of the immediate environment of the PC (this is how Streetwise works in the 1977 edition of Classic Traveller). To me, this suggests that these expectations about how RPGing works are not shaped primarily by written RPG texts, nor by playing in accordance with the procedures set out in those texts, but rather by a shared set of play expectations and play experiences that exist somewhat independently of particular texts and their canonical presentations of play procedures. We could call this a _widespread culture of RPGing_. Although I agree with you that the two issues - _does system matter?_ and _does system exposure shape RPGing expectations? _are separate ones, I think they can be related in the following fashion: one way to reduce the dominance of a widespread culture of RPGing, and thereby to increase the variety of RPGing experiences, is to encourage a careful attention to the canonical presentation of play procedures, and then playing in accordance with them and observing how this affects the play experience.

This is what at least parts of the OSR have done with respect to early forms of Gygaxian/Moldvay-ian/"skilled play" D&D; and this is what the Forge did more generally. It is a way of generating, by empirical demonstration, the knowledge that _system matters_.


----------



## Emerikol (Mar 1, 2021)

I play that the rules are the physics of the world because I prefer the total immersion as character approach.  As a result system very much does matter.  That doesn't mean there is only one system for any particular genre.  You may want to play different sorts of games.

And I fully support the notion that during 1e AD&D a lot of social interaction was going on in the game.  Not a lot of rolling of dice or checking skills/proficiencies was going on though.  The social aspects of the game were essentially you as in the real you.  So you were a variant of yourself where you could be smarter but only off camera, and you could be far better at fighting and of course wielding magic.  That is not a terrible way to play but it's also limited.  Some people may want to venture beyond themselves.  

For me that has some issues with immersion.  You have a PC that acts like a jerk but still wants his roll to be modified by a really good diplomacy skill.  So I prefer to keep a lot of those skill checks behind the screen and leave it a bit open ended.  Again that is my preference and not a prescription for anyone else.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Mar 1, 2021)

Emerikol said:


> I play that the rules are the physics of the world because I prefer the total immersion as character approach.  As a result system very much does matter.  That doesn't mean there is only one system for any particular genre.  You may want to play different sorts of games.



Meanwhile I find little more _anti-immersive_ than interrupting the roleplaying to calculate the physics effects using a semi-abstract system. System matters but so does familiarity and so does the person using the system.


----------



## Emerikol (Mar 2, 2021)

Neonchameleon said:


> Meanwhile I find little more _anti-immersive_ than interrupting the roleplaying to calculate the physics effects using a semi-abstract system. System matters but so does familiarity and so does the person using the system.



Okay so maybe I used a term you are not familiar with in my statement.   When I say the rules are the physics of the world, that means the characters as well as the players are aware of the rules at least in the abstract.  In 1e for example, wizards knew there were nine levels of spells.  They may have had different names for those levels but they knew there were gradations.   In the same regard, the rules as applied to the characters applies generally to the people of the world.   So a fighter is not a unique rules concept only for PCs.  Fighters exist in the world as NPCs and use the same rules.

Now, the rulesets could vary greatly and still be what the world understands to be true.  In a GURPS fantasy world or a D&D fantasy world, the people could understand basically how magic works but that understanding would be different.   It would be different for the fighter types too.   High fantasy is not low fantasy.   

The difference in views is there are those who think the PCs are different from the rest of the NPC world and that the characters do not grasp the rules as the way things are in game.  The players understand the rules but when inside the character's head they would not have an awareness of those rules.

It's a nuance but it affects playstyle a lot.  It does affect _some_ rules writing.


----------



## Emerikol (Mar 2, 2021)

pemerton said:


> But as it happens the evidence that changes in the processes, techniques and/or mechanics of play produce broadly predictable changes in the RPGing experience is overwhelming. The evidence I have in mind is both evidence from my own experience, and evidence from others' posting. I'm not going to try and rehearse all that evidence in this post, but here is the single clearest bit of it that I know: in an essay written in 2003, about 5 years before 4e D&D was published, Ron Edwards identified virtually all of the features of the 4e system that would make it so controversial among a wide number of RPGers who were looking for a play experience different from the one delivered by 4e:
> ..... removed for brevity....




We've all had these discussions for a long time about role playing and what it means.  I probably lean more towards the Alexandrian's take as you know but being a game, I am rational enough to realize if a group is having fun then it is a success for that group.

What I've found is that the failure to develop a common language we can all use effectively at describing our games has led to system being a stand-in.   Meaning some games lend themselves to certain playstyles and perhaps by default that is the assumption when playing those games.   That is not to say a game like D&D couldn't be played in a variety of different ways.

This may be as much as anything part of the reason for the OSR.  It's not that people want old clunky rules.   They want a playstyle that they grew up playing and enjoyed.   It's the GM creates the world and actual player skill matters.  As you mentioned in your post.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Mar 2, 2021)

Emerikol said:


> Okay so maybe I used a term you are not familiar with in my statement.



You did not. I just happen to find different things immersive to those you do. In particular

Every second you spend negotiating with the rules is a second you spend having had your immersion thrown out
Every time you are stopped in the middle of an action rather than at a handover point by the rules is a time you are thrown out of the game.
Apocalypse World, for what it's worth, is amazing at this second one. I roll when if I was playing freeform I'd be handing over narration anyway.


Emerikol said:


> When I say the rules are the physics of the world, that means the characters as well as the players are aware of the rules at least in the abstract.



To which, as far as my immersion goes _so what?_

I know my quadratic equations and am aware of how they work. This doesn't mean I literally calculate the math every time I catch a ball. However if I were to try and roleplay in the real world using rules as physics of the world this is what it would make me do. If I'm playing a sniper and want to calculate trajectories mathematically, sure. But for most people in most situations calculating trajectories is almost entirely unlike what I would do in real life. The real world _has _a physics model. But that doesn't mean that I'm thinking about how real world physics works in abstract terms in order to engage with it.


Emerikol said:


> The difference in views is there are those who think the PCs are different from the rest of the NPC world and that the characters do not grasp the rules as the way things are in game.  The players understand the rules but when inside the character's head they would not have an awareness of those rules.
> 
> It's a nuance but it affects playstyle a lot.  It does affect _some_ rules writing.



No. That's not the difference. The difference is whether the rules are a physics engine that bind the world or whether the rules are a user interface that let you engage with the world as fluidly as possible. Whether the rules are about calculating the trajectory of the ball, or whether they are about enabling you to track it into your hands (or not).

And the immersion question is also about whether you find it more immersive for you through your character to be able to interface with the game setting or whether you are more concerned by abstract questions of how _other characters that you are not actually playing_ do so.

And do you really, sincerely, think that DMs roll all NPC action behind the screen?


----------



## Emerikol (Mar 2, 2021)

Neonchameleon said:


> You did not. I just happen to find different things immersive to those you do. In particular
> 
> Every second you spend negotiating with the rules is a second you spend having had your immersion thrown out
> Every time you are stopped in the middle of an action rather than at a handover point by the rules is a time you are thrown out of the game.
> ...



First I think we are talking completely past each other.   I really don't think you are using rules as physics of the world the way I am and your responses keep showing that that is true.

For the purposes of this particular discussion (only):
I don't care about how much math is involved.  Whether is would use a complex equation (never in reality) or whether it's a very easily computable value is irrelevant to my point.

The question I was discussing was rules as in world knowledge.  Do NPC's know that there are nine levels of spells in a D&D world?  Do they generally understand that high level fighters can wade through low level fighters with relative ease?   These are not things we know in our world.   They are known in the D&D world.   At least from my viewpoint.   Other perspectives might argue differently and say that for them that knowledge is not known in game world.   

And immersion is immersion.  It is a person thing.  I can't argue that your claim that something bothers your immersion is wrong.  Nor can you argue that mine is wrong.  The whole point of this discussion is -- does system matter?  I think it matters because typically systems cater to some degree to all the different playstyles.  The more general it is the more it tries to cater to more viewpoints.  I absolutely though think that D&D 5e does not cater to someone wanting an OSR style game.  You can try to bend it that way of course but I think it is more trouble than it is worth given so many good OSR games.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 2, 2021)

Emerikol said:


> First I think we are talking completely past each other.   I really don't think you are using rules as physics of the world the way I am and your responses keep showing that that is true.
> 
> For the purposes of this particular discussion (only):
> I don't care about how much math is involved.  Whether is would use a complex equation (never in reality) or whether it's a very easily computable value is irrelevant to my point.
> ...



When I play 5e, most of the rule conventions aren't known.  No one knows what a Fighter class is, or what a Wizard class is, and there's zero fictional weight to level.  Spells, being odd, usually do, but that's more a matter of convience -- I mean, a 3rd level slot fireball is different from a 6th level slot fireball in effect, but they're the same spell.  In fiction, it's not easy to tease this out.  Further, NPCs may or may not use PC class rules, and this is part of the core assumptions of 5e.

The fictional world being aware of the game rules has little to do with system, and is more a function of worldbuilding.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 2, 2021)

_Immersion _is a mental state of some sort.

Categorising mental states is notoriously difficult! There are cognitive states, volitional states, emotional states, etc and of course many of these overlap and interact in incredibly complex ways.

_Being immersed in a fiction _seems to be most often a description of a type of "withdrawal" from the ordinary processes of paying attention to and responding to the world around; because instead one's cognitive focus is on an imaginary situation, and that is what one is emotionally responding to.

In the context of a RPG, as well as that sort of immersion there can be other sorts too. For instance, there can be _volitional immersion_ whereby I as a player want the same things that my character wants. And this can itself take different forms: I might volitionally immerse by way of imaginative projection of myself into the character's situation, so that (metaphorically speaking) I "become" that other person; or, I might volitionally immerse by setting up the game in such a way that my real-world motivations as a player align with the motivations of my character in the fiction. The impression I get from Gygax's rulebooks is that his table favoured that second form of volitional immersion.

My own approach to immersion, which I suspect is similar to @Neonchameleon's, is to imaginatively project into the character/situation, and then to rely on the system - the processes of play, the resolution techniques, etc - to support and sustain rather than interfere with or contradict that imaginative projection. This has multiple aspects to it, and I think they're fairly complicated to analyse, but a couple are: (i) the system shouldn't generate incentives for me as a player that push _against_ the motivations I am embracing via imaginative projection; (ii) the system shouldn't throw up situations that repeatedly _contradict_ the true beliefs I am projecting myself into.

An example of a system satisfying (i): the 4e paladin at-will attack Valiant Strike makes the paladin stronger (ie to-hit bonuses) when surrounded by foes. The system therefore supports rather than undercuts the motivations that are part of being a paladin - ie to valiantly enter the fray!

And further thoughts on (ii): the notion of _true beliefs_ is central to how I've stated it. If my character's beliefs are meant to be up for grabs, than of course the system needs to (potentially) challenge them. But (to go back to the paladin example) if I am playing a character who is, in truth, divinely inspired, and if that is part of what the character knows - and this is true for any D&D cleric or paladin - then the system will undermine immersion into this character's situation if it repeatedly throws up situations that contradict that knowledge of the workings of providence. Classic D&D has a tendency to do this, which is consistent with its sword-and-sorcery inspirations but inconsistent with having clerics and paladins (as opposed to warlocks and sorcerers). 4e D&D, on the other hand, is very good at not doing this.


----------



## innerdude (Mar 3, 2021)

Emerikol said:


> Okay so maybe I used a term you are not familiar with in my statement.   When I say the rules are the physics of the world, that means the characters as well as the players are aware of the rules at least in the abstract.  In 1e for example, wizards knew there were nine levels of spells.  They may have had different names for those levels but they knew there were gradations.   In the same regard, the rules as applied to the characters applies generally to the people of the world.   So a fighter is not a unique rules concept only for PCs.  Fighters exist in the world as NPCs and use the same rules.
> 
> Now, the rulesets could vary greatly and still be what the world understands to be true.  In a GURPS fantasy world or a D&D fantasy world, the people could understand basically how magic works but that understanding would be different.   It would be different for the fighter types too.   High fantasy is not low fantasy.
> 
> The difference in views is there are those who think the PCs are different from the rest of the NPC world and that the characters do not grasp the rules as the way things are in game.  The players understand the rules but when inside the character's head they would not have an awareness of those rules.




The problem with _rules as physics_ is that there are mountains of underlying assumptions in terms of process/playstyle that sit beneath that basic idea.

The basis for the idea of _rules as physics_ does not really stem from some idealized method of "immersive" experience. The pursuit of _rules as physics_ is overwhelmingly tied to a particular idea of _rules arbitration_, which is, "RPG rules are more fair and easier to arbitrate if they are based, as much as possible, on 'realistic' and 'plausible' cause/effect interactions as we understand them. As such, _rules as physics_ is one of the shortest, best paths for the rules to meet these criteria."

But what kind of gameplay mindset assumes this as the default?

"Because GMs are the ultimate arbiters of everything, the game needs to be as easy to adjudicate as possible."
"_Rules as physics_ should lead to fewer arguments about 'what happened here and when,' because the GM can just point to the rules and say, 'Look, physics!'"
"Players have less room for complaint, because everything that happens in the game is the natural result of inputs A, B, C, and D, which naturally lead to outputs W, X, Y, and Z. If the players couldn't understand what the natural result would be, it's clearly because they didn't read the rules enough."

Interestingly, I actually find that systems that emphasize _rules as physics _(GURPS being the absolute poster child, D&D 3.5 being a lesser example but still on the continuum), tend to have the opposite effect on immersion. The greater the "realism" of the system, the greater the reliance on players to engage in "skilled play" to make the experience tolerable (or even work at all). Players become heavily invested in eking out every possible advantage, modifier, and statistic; "immersion" of character is secondary.

Ultimately,_ rules as physics_ is a shorthand for much, much more---stuff that's largely unspoken, assumed, and rarely discussed as being part of the "process."


The more I read it, the more this quote by Vincent Baker stands out as speaking to a very important truth:

"Mechanics might model the stuff of the game world, that's another topic, but they don't exist to do so. They exist to ease and constrain real-world social negotiation between the players at the table. That's their sole and crucial function."

_Rules as physics_ contains a huge swath of embedded assumptions about the nature of play. When you start from the baseline assumption that "rules are the physics of the world," you are necessarily constraining the kinds of inputs that are "allowed" to be reflected/respected in the resulting fiction.



Emerikol said:


> It's a nuance but it affects playstyle a lot.  It does affect _some_ rules writing.




It's not just a nuance. It's a fundamental assumption about what the purpose of play is in the first place.


----------



## DrunkonDuty (Mar 3, 2021)

pemerton said:


> And further thoughts on (ii): the notion of _true beliefs_ is central to how I've stated it. If my character's beliefs are meant to be up for grabs, than of course the system needs to (potentially) challenge them. But (to go back to the paladin example) if I am playing a character who is, in truth, divinely inspired, and if that is part of what the character knows - and this is true for any D&D cleric or paladin - then the system will undermine immersion into this character's situation if it repeatedly throws up situations that contradict that knowledge of the workings of providence. Classic D&D has a tendency to do this, which is consistent with its sword-and-sorcery inspirations but inconsistent with having clerics and paladins (as opposed to warlocks and sorcerers). 4e D&D, on the other hand, is very good at not doing this.




@pemerton Sorry, but I'm not following this part. Can you expand on the differences you see for clerics & paladins between 4th ed. on the one hand and the older editions on the other? And the role of (in game) providence in the differences?

cheers.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 3, 2021)

DrunkonDuty said:


> @pemerton Sorry, but I'm not following this part. Can you expand on the differences you see for clerics & paladins between 4th ed. on the one hand and the older editions on the other? And the role of (in game) providence in the differences?
> 
> cheers.



Not @pemerton, but, simply put, in 4e clerics and paladins can call on their beliefs and/or divinity and it works when they do so.  This is part of the power structure allowing players to leverage the fiction.  In other versions of D&D, such things are either weak or up to the GM to determine the effects.  The notable difference is the spells, but that's the only kind of divine invocation that's usually reliable.  

This also assumes you're using 4e resolutions in a way that's similar to Story Now techniques -- that the players can call for a change in the fiction based on their action declaration for their character, and a success means that change happens (within genre and existing fictional constraints, of course).  If you're instead using the more traditional approach to action resolution in 4e, which you can do, then there is a loss of divine reliability.


----------



## DrunkonDuty (Mar 3, 2021)

@Ovinomancer Cool! Thanks for that. It makes sense now.


----------



## Emerikol (Mar 3, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> When I play 5e, most of the rule conventions aren't known.  No one knows what a Fighter class is, or what a Wizard class is, and there's zero fictional weight to level.  Spells, being odd, usually do, but that's more a matter of convience -- I mean, a 3rd level slot fireball is different from a 6th level slot fireball in effect, but they're the same spell.  In fiction, it's not easy to tease this out.  Further, NPCs may or may not use PC class rules, and this is part of the core assumptions of 5e.
> 
> The fictional world being aware of the game rules has little to do with system, and is more a function of worldbuilding.



Ahhh I at least found someone I can discuss this with who actually understands the term.  Sorry but many (not all) of you responding above whiffed.  

So we can at least agree that rules as physics of the world is something either desired or not desired by players.   Now the question is the intersection of system vs that desire.   

I think too we should not get too focused on names.  The concept of class as a term in the world is likely not something a fighter would know because the fighter is pretty generic.   I think it's not at all difficult though to imagine a wizard, druid, or cleric stating in game that they are a wizard, druid, or cleric.   They would not likely say my "class is wizard" for example.  They would say "I am a wizard".   In my games it would not be that unusual for someone to state they are a fighter either for that matter but I can see that class as the generic catch all.

And yes I also see that even in 3rd edition they had NPC classes.  So not everyone has a class in the world.  Many do NPCs do though.   They expert class is fine for a baker but not so good for a wizard.   I never used the Adept or any of the other NPC classes.   You need a way to represent skill in the game outside a class.  

Either way systems encourage certain styles of play.   So my intent was not to debate styles of play.  I think my style is great for me and I have great fun using it.   So tough if anyone doesn't like that.  ;-).   I do think system matters if you prefer certain styles of play.   If the things the PC has to manage (like surges or HD) don't feel right (a subjective concept I agree), then the game is not ideal for you.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 3, 2021)

Emerikol said:


> Ahhh I at least found someone I can discuss this with who actually understands the term.  Sorry but many (not all) of you responding above whiffed.



That's mostly on you, though, for using a highly idiosyncratic definition of "rules as physics."  This has been a term of art used in discussion of game analysis for awhile and is more commonly understood as preferring the rules to model the physics of the world rather than how you've used it, which is that the fictional world understands the game rules as it's reality.


Emerikol said:


> So we can at least agree that rules as physics of the world is something either desired or not desired by players.   Now the question is the intersection of system vs that desire.
> 
> I think too we should not get too focused on names.  The concept of class as a term in the world is likely not something a fighter would know because the fighter is pretty generic.   I think it's not at all difficult though to imagine a wizard, druid, or cleric stating in game that they are a wizard, druid, or cleric.   They would not likely say my "class is wizard" for example.  They would say "I am a wizard".   In my games it would not be that unusual for someone to state they are a fighter either for that matter but I can see that class as the generic catch all.
> 
> ...



Perfectly fine approach, but it's not at all what's meant by "system matters."  As I said above, this is a matter of how you design the fictional world rather than a function of the system.  In thinking on it, I'm having trouble with pulling out a function of system that lends itself to this approach.  I started thinking that more simulationist systems would do so, but that doesn't work, really, as this approach rarely crops up in more modern or more sci-fi systems, even in highly simulationist systems.  It seems to really be a function of games where the lore is built into the systems (WoD) or D&D-esque games.  I think it's really just a matter of worldbuilding, and not really a system function outside of the cases where a system has been tightly coupled to the worldbuilding or the premise is distant enough that it's easy to assume this kind of fictional understanding because the effort to encompass more is not worth the effort.  I think this is the case with D&D, where it can sometimes be easier for the players to engage the lore with the assumption that the rules are understood as reality rather than add work to expand the lore so that the rules are not definitional of reality.

I had a poll a number of years ago where I asked a similar question -- do the classes have concrete meaning in your games?  The answers were divided fairly equality between all the time, none of the time, and some of the time.  Here's the link, if you're interested.


----------



## Emerikol (Mar 3, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> That's mostly on you, though, for using a highly idiosyncratic definition of "rules as physics."  This has been a term of art used in discussion of game analysis for awhile and is more commonly understood as preferring the rules to model the physics of the world rather than how you've used it, which is that the fictional world understands the game rules as it's reality.
> 
> Perfectly fine approach, but it's not at all what's meant by "system matters."  As I said above, this is a matter of how you design the fictional world rather than a function of the system.  In thinking on it, I'm having trouble with pulling out a function of system that lends itself to this approach.  I started thinking that more simulationist systems would do so, but that doesn't work, really, as this approach rarely crops up in more modern or more sci-fi systems, even in highly simulationist systems.  It seems to really be a function of games where the lore is built into the systems (WoD) or D&D-esque games.  I think it's really just a matter of worldbuilding, and not really a system function outside of the cases where a system has been tightly coupled to the worldbuilding or the premise is distant enough that it's easy to assume this kind of fictional understanding because the effort to encompass more is not worth the effort.  I think this is the case with D&D, where it can sometimes be easier for the players to engage the lore with the assumption that the rules are understood as reality rather than add work to expand the lore so that the rules are not definitional of reality.
> 
> I had a poll a number of years ago where I asked a similar question -- do the classes have concrete meaning in your games?  The answers were divided fairly equality between all the time, none of the time, and some of the time.  Here's the link, if you're interested.



It's kind of funny I went to look at the poll and saw that I had voted in it already.  I voted yes.  .

As for the first paragraph, if the rules are the physics of the world then the inevitable conclusion is that at least from an observational perspective the people in that world know those rules.   I may not know that gravity is the right term but I know if I throw a rock up it will come down.   What I was objecting to was the notion that it revolved around the nature of those rules in terms of complexity or math or whatever.   That aspect doesn't matter.   You could have a super rules lite game where the rules that did exist were known in the world.   So it's not a straight line and the whole complex math line was a red herring.   And of course when I say "known", I mean the cause and effect nature of them.

Perhaps a better example is in order.  
Let's suppose two excellent sword fighters in real life have a 2% chance of wounding the other in any given 10 second exchange.
Let's suppose in the game the chance is 25%. 

The people of the world will understand that difference.   Not precisely but they will understand that fights are far more swift and deadly than they would be in our world.  And I made up that example so don't argue it just change the numbers it doesn't matter.   Those numbers are likely different.   

Another example, when a gargantuan reptilian creature swats you with his tail, in our world you would likely go bouncing across the ground and not get back up.   In most versions of D&D, you would get back up and perhaps go slay that dragon with a sword.

So the point is games are not reality.  Games lay down different ground rules.  The world either reflects those ground rules or ignores them entirely and pretends things are like our world despite facts to the contrary in the world.   The rules might even only apply to PCs and the rest of the world is more normal (well as normal as possible given magic).   

A system will matter for people who play a certain style where they see the way things working as the truth of their world.  For example, what are surges and what are HD?  What are their analogy in the game world.  If you think as I do you have to rectify that and for some they do and for others they don't.  It still must be rectified.   For still others who don't play with rules as physics they have no need to rectify it because it was never the truth of the world to begin with.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 3, 2021)

Emerikol said:


> It's kind of funny I went to look at the poll and saw that I had voted in it already.  I voted yes.  .
> 
> As for the first paragraph, if the rules are the physics of the world then the inevitable conclusion is that at least from an observational perspective the people in that world know those rules.   I may not know that gravity is the right term but I know if I throw a rock up it will come down.   What I was objecting to was the notion that it revolved around the nature of those rules in terms of complexity or math or whatever.   That aspect doesn't matter.   You could have a super rules lite game where the rules that did exist were known in the world.   So it's not a straight line and the whole complex math line was a red herring.   And of course when I say "known", I mean the cause and effect nature of them.



Except... if you accept that what's modeled in the game session is not the general way things are always modeled in the reality, this breaks down quickly.  I don't apply the combat rules to everything off camera when I run 5e -- and I have stories of fights, heck I've run fights, that haven't used the combat mechanics (I ran a fight about 2 years ago that was part of a skill challenges, and that fight didn't involve the normal combat rules, but rather skill uses and narrative techniques, and I did this because it was embedded in a larger plot -- it was the diversionary gladiator fight during an attempt to lure and capture a notorious and dangerous criminal)!  So, yeah, this requires leaning into the concept and isn't a function of having rules.

More to the point, some games, like Blades in the Dark, actively fight against this concept.  The rules there do no modeling of reliable physics because they sit at the level of narrative rather than task resolution.  You might make a check in one moment to determine who what happens next in a knife fight, and then make that same check to see what happens during a gang war clash!

So, no, I'm not sure I can agree that this is a logical outcome of having rules rather than a choice of approach.


Emerikol said:


> Perhaps a better example is in order.
> Let's suppose two excellent sword fighters in real life have a 2% chance of wounding the other in any given 10 second exchange.
> Let's suppose in the game the chance is 25%.
> 
> The people of the world will understand that difference.   Not precisely but they will understand that fights are far more swift and deadly than they would be in our world.  And I made up that example so don't argue it just change the numbers it doesn't matter.   Those numbers are likely different.



Except that... it doesn't have to work this way nor does it mean that such things, which are parsed out for us as players so that they're simplified, are actually observable with any such granularity in the game world.  This, however, does move you much more closely to the understood version of rules as physics than what you've argued above.  This is saying that the rules are the model of the physics in the world, rather than a game resolution mechanic, and are universal in all cases throughout the world.  This, however, is not a system function, but a worldbuilding function.


Emerikol said:


> Another example, when a gargantuan reptilian creature swats you with his tail, in our world you would likely go bouncing across the ground and not get back up.   In most versions of D&D, you would get back up and perhaps go slay that dragon with a sword.
> 
> So the point is games are not reality.  Games lay down different ground rules.  The world either reflects those ground rules or ignores them entirely and pretends things are like our world despite facts to the contrary in the world.   The rules might even only apply to PCs and the rest of the world is more normal (well as normal as possible given magic).
> 
> A system will matter for people who play a certain style where they see the way things working as the truth of their world.  For example, what are surges and what are HD?  What are their analogy in the game world.  If you think as I do you have to rectify that and for some they do and for others they don't.  It still must be rectified.   For still others who don't play with rules as physics they have no need to rectify it because it was never the truth of the world to begin with.



This is really what confuses me about this argument.  On the one hand, you clearly suggest that not being thrown by a massive creature swatting you is non-realistic (for a given value of realism), but then say that good modelling of physical processes is important to people that prefer this approach!  D&D is a poor physics engine, at the best of times, but it's often held out as an example of where this approach is applied.  What it seems like to me is that there's an amalgamation of understandings and preferences that have accreted over time, or perhaps been taught when a player is first introduced to the game, that results in a hodge-podge of when it matters and when it doesn't.  Nothing at all wrong with this!  If you have fun, it's the right way, I just have difficulty grasping holding D&D out as an exemplar of rules as phsyics, especially with the core of the combat system being a metagame mechanic (hitpoints, talking about hitpoints)!


----------



## innerdude (Mar 3, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> I just have difficulty grasping holding D&D out as an exemplar of rules as phsyics, especially with the core of the combat system being a metagame mechanic (hitpoints, talking about hitpoints)!




Not just a metagame mechanic, but a Fortune-in-the-Middle metagame mechanic at that. What does all of that hit point attrition actually mean in the fiction, anyways? No one really knows until the end of the fight, after all healing checks have been made and hit dice expended.

Only then can you reverse-engineer a fight to sort of make sense of "just how wounded, exactly" the PC participants were.


----------



## Emerikol (Mar 3, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> Except... if you accept that what's modeled in the game session is not the general way things are always modeled in the reality, this breaks down quickly.  I don't apply the combat rules to everything off camera when I run 5e -- and I have stories of fights, heck I've run fights, that haven't used the combat mechanics (I ran a fight about 2 years ago that was part of a skill challenges, and that fight didn't involve the normal combat rules, but rather skill uses and narrative techniques, and I did this because it was embedded in a larger plot -- it was the diversionary gladiator fight during an attempt to lure and capture a notorious and dangerous criminal)!  So, yeah, this requires leaning into the concept and isn't a function of having rules.



Remember we are discussing multiple play styles.  The fact you do not does not mean no one does.  That is the whole crux of the matter.

Now, also remember that even if a DM would adjudicate an outcome without playing it out as they likely would, they would do so based on the rules and not the real world.   In D&D, if a 20th level fighter is surrounded and attacked by 20 1st level fighters he will mop the floor with them.  We might agree this is unlikely in the real world.  Let's posit it is even if you disagree for purposes of this discussion.  The DM is going to know off camera a battle occurred between the 20th level fighter and the 1st level fighters.  He won't play it out but he will resolve it based on his knowledge of the rules.   At least in my own way of playing.  




Ovinomancer said:


> More to the point, some games, like Blades in the Dark, actively fight against this concept.  The rules there do no modeling of reliable physics because they sit at the level of narrative rather than task resolution.  You might make a check in one moment to determine who what happens next in a knife fight, and then make that same check to see what happens during a gang war clash!
> 
> So, no, I'm not sure I can agree that this is a logical outcome of having rules rather than a choice of approach.




So a game deliberately caters to a particular idea.  Does that not mean that other systems might not cater the other way.  So system can matter.  



Ovinomancer said:


> Except that... it doesn't have to work this way nor does it mean that such things, which are parsed out for us as players so that they're simplified, are actually observable with any such granularity in the game world.  This, however, does move you much more closely to the understood version of rules as physics than what you've argued above.  This is saying that the rules are the model of the physics in the world, rather than a game resolution mechanic, and are universal in all cases throughout the world.  This, however, is not a system function, but a worldbuilding function.



I was never off of that understanding.  You've just realized what I am talking about.  If the rules are the physics of the world then it inexorably leads to the idea that characters within that world have some understanding of them.  The same way we do with the real world even in the middle ages.  




Ovinomancer said:


> This is really what confuses me about this argument.  On the one hand, you clearly suggest that not being thrown by a massive creature swatting you is non-realistic (for a given value of realism), but then say that good modelling of physical processes is important to people that prefer this approach!  D&D is a poor physics engine, at the best of times, but it's often held out as an example of where this approach is applied.  What it seems like to me is that there's an amalgamation of understandings and preferences that have accreted over time, or perhaps been taught when a player is first introduced to the game, that results in a hodge-podge of when it matters and when it doesn't.  Nothing at all wrong with this!  If you have fun, it's the right way, I just have difficulty grasping holding D&D out as an exemplar of rules as phsyics, especially with the core of the combat system being a metagame mechanic (hitpoints, talking about hitpoints)!



It has nothing to do with realism.  It's a blind spot in your way of thinking for sure.  It's never been about realism.  1e is no more realistic than 3e.  We are able to imagine a larger than life fantasy world where PC's and some NPCs as well are super heroic.   So you really miss the whole point but I think it is the very fact that it is hard for you to grasp our position that makes you who you are in your preferences.  People with different sensibilities have a difficulty with empathy for the other side.

As to game system, a game like 1e D&D for example is easy to apply the rules as physics.  While super heroic, there is nothing that really seems alien.  It's very much like watching tv.  There is crap on tv that is completely unrealistic but we buy it.  It's plausible in a super heroic setting.  And that goes for all sorts of shows not just fantasy/sci-fi shows.  Every notice that the hero will easy punch a bad guy once and knock him out until at the end he fights the big bad guy and they will literally beat the living daylights out of each other and neither go down for some time?

There are things in a game that just don't sit right despite our ability to include the fantastical.  Those things are part of a system typically.  When a system has those things, a lot of people decide the system is not for them.  Often they don't even know why because not everyone thinks it through like we do.


----------



## Emerikol (Mar 3, 2021)

innerdude said:


> Not just a metagame mechanic, but a Fortune-in-the-Middle metagame mechanic at that. What does all of that hit point attrition actually mean in the fiction, anyways? No one really knows until the end of the fight, after all healing checks have been made and hit dice expended.
> 
> Only then can you reverse-engineer a fight to sort of make sense of "just how wounded, exactly" the PC participants were.



I don't mind a simple hit point system but the mess of it WoTC has made in the last two editions is not my cup of tea.


----------



## Campbell (Mar 3, 2021)

These days I tend to like games with a fairly high degree of correspondence between the fiction and the rules. I'm still not comfortable extrapolating rules beyond their intended use though. No model or representation of things is going to do a perfect job of representing what's actually happening. The more specific the model the less well it tends to represent/explain/predict outside of its bounds. A pretty good example is the detailed skirmish combat between relatively small numbers of characters within pretty similar bands of combat capability we see in most action oriented RPGs. Trying to expand the model outside of those fairly narrow constraints tends to lead to issues.


----------



## Emerikol (Mar 3, 2021)

One fun answer I often give in a certain situation came to mind from this discussion.  Yes the rules are the physics of the world in my game but magic items and monsters are not "rules" that are public to the players.   I tell them it's fine to read those things (mainly I can't stop them) but that they should be treated as treatise on what an in world person knows and not absolute reality.

So when a magic item behaves differently or a monster lacks a power or has a different one and a player says "Hey that monster can't do that?".  I answer "Are you going to believe some old must tome put out by the local sage or are you going to believe your own eyes?"


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 3, 2021)

Emerikol said:


> Remember we are discussing multiple play styles.  The fact you do not does not mean no one does.  That is the whole crux of the matter.



I don't believe I made any statement that would suggest that I'm not aware of, or even disapprove of, other methods or approaches to play.  I'm absolutely sure I made statements to the contrary.

I'm not arguing against however you choose to play, I'm pointing out that the justification you gave is contradictory with itself.  If you care about that or not, I'm not to say, nor to judge, but if you make the argument here, it's open for discussion.


Emerikol said:


> Now, also remember that even if a DM would adjudicate an outcome without playing it out as they likely would, they would do so based on the rules and not the real world.   In D&D, if a 20th level fighter is surrounded and attacked by 20 1st level fighters he will mop the floor with them.  We might agree this is unlikely in the real world.  Let's posit it is even if you disagree for purposes of this discussion.  The DM is going to know off camera a battle occurred between the 20th level fighter and the 1st level fighters.  He won't play it out but he will resolve it based on his knowledge of the rules.   At least in my own way of playing.



I don't, so I'm assuming that the DM in this situation is one that approaches play as you do?  With that assumption, sure, you can do this, but it's not mandated or required by the rules.  In other words, the system here doesn't mandate this, but rather the player's choice on how to build their world does.

This thread is about how system matters, not about choices we make that aren't related to system.  A similar topic that's nearby but not directly related to system matters is the discussion about what roleplaying is or how it's expected to be done at the table -- system rarely impinges on this discussion; it's a discussion largely orthogonal to the issue of the thread.  As is the players making the choice to have the game rules be discoverable in the fictional world.


Emerikol said:


> So a game deliberately caters to a particular idea.  Does that not mean that other systems might not cater the other way.  So system can matter.



I'm a strong, and vocal, proponent that system does matter.  However, in this case, a system that fights your choice to make game rules discoverable in the fiction doesn't make the point you think it does.  There's a fallacy here that if not b means not a, that b then means a.  A game that doesn't work with with your preference doesn't mean that a game that does requires it.  It's still not on the system if you choose to make game rules discoverable.


Emerikol said:


> I was never off of that understanding.  You've just realized what I am talking about.  If the rules are the physics of the world then it inexorably leads to the idea that characters within that world have some understanding of them.  The same way we do with the real world even in the middle ages.



Um, what?  I'm pretty sure I've followed you pretty well.  My point is that the choice to make game rules discoverable in the fiction is not tied to system, but is an orthogonal choice.  Yes, some systems make this much harder, or incoherent, but that doesn't mean that a system that does requires it, or even encourages it (I've largely never played this way, throughout any edition of D&D I've read or played).  

And, again, my point is that this preference is largely done ad hoc and piecemeal, making it somewhat incoherent.  Some rules are reified in the game world, and other are not, and some are outright ignored.  This makes the concept even harder to conceive of as an approach, because it's basis is so ad hoc.


Emerikol said:


> It has nothing to do with realism.  It's a blind spot in your way of thinking for sure.  It's never been about realism.  1e is no more realistic than 3e.  We are able to imagine a larger than life fantasy world where PC's and some NPCs as well are super heroic.   So you really miss the whole point but I think it is the very fact that it is hard for you to grasp our position that makes you who you are in your preferences.  People with different sensibilities have a difficulty with empathy for the other side.



Right, I understood your comment about the lizard to be pointing out where the rules don't establish a good foundation as physics, but instead you were saying that being slapped by a massive tail not moving you at all is just the physics of this world.  Ones that lead to oddities, like when a large slap does move you (as with some giant abilities) that are largely, in the fiction, not very different in scale or scope.  Giants can toss you with a club swipe, but dragons cannot with a similarly sized and swung tail, because... reasons. 

This was my point, that you've buried under dismissing "realism" -- that the approach you suggest contains incoherencies because the rules of D&D do a very poor job of defining a coherent physical system.  And that's not another realism argument, it's pointing out that the rules are rarely even consistent.  A person living in this world wouldn't discover these physics, and understand them in any real way, but would instead just deal with the chaos of the system as it comes, on an exception based concept.

To me, this is the real crux of this approach -- that the view taken is from the point of the players, where the world operates according to game rules and what Bob the GM says, but is then extrapolated, usually by Bob, into some kind of understanding in the game world of the game rules by the fictional inhabitants.  The point that gets missed, here, is exactly how much of these rules are really just what Bob the GM says -- heck, 5e embraces this approach as foundational!  So, in reality, the "physics" in the world are what Bob says they are, and aren't the game rules when Bob says they aren't.  In this regard, it's not really the rules, but Bob that does the deciding as to what physics are represented in the game world, and Bob could decided, were he inclined to do so, with a different general understanding that what the rules might or might not say.

To sum this up, this approach isn't really any different from not treating the rules as repeatable, discoverable processes in the fiction -- it's still just about what the GM says, but tries to borrow the cloak of orthodoxy by referencing the rules.  I find it doesn't.  Which isn't to say that it can't be a perfectly fine approach, and that it can't generate tremendous fun, or that it's bad to do this.  It's just not privileged in any way by claiming an association with the rules (which is arbitrary).


Emerikol said:


> As to game system, a game like 1e D&D for example is easy to apply the rules as physics.  While super heroic, there is nothing that really seems alien.  It's very much like watching tv.  There is crap on tv that is completely unrealistic but we buy it.  It's plausible in a super heroic setting.  And that goes for all sorts of shows not just fantasy/sci-fi shows.  Every notice that the hero will easy punch a bad guy once and knock him out until at the end he fights the big bad guy and they will literally beat the living daylights out of each other and neither go down for some time?
> 
> There are things in a game that just don't sit right despite our ability to include the fantastical.  Those things are part of a system typically.  When a system has those things, a lot of people decide the system is not for them.  Often they don't even know why because not everyone thinks it through like we do.



I'm not convinced your method of "thinking it through" is really anything different from being arbitrary, though.  I play 5e by the book, with small house rules for each campaign to enhance themes but that rarely alter the actual rules (more add ons for additional focuses, and then even slight).  I don't have any problems with how 5e works, and I absolutely don't get close to treating the game rules as discoverable physical systems in the game world.  The opposite, if anything.  So, your approach doesn't seem to be privileged in being able to make sense of the rules any more than a different approach, especially since I avoid anything like your preference.

And, suspension of disbelief doesn't require assuming game rules are discoverable physical processes in the fiction.  Not at all.


----------



## dragoner (Mar 3, 2021)

RPG's are indeed physics engines, they are both about modelling a world, otherwise there would nothing there. Nevertheless this is beyond the OP thesis, as it is only about not wasting time trying to "fix" a system. It can circle back on a more jargonistic approach, however.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 3, 2021)

dragoner said:


> View attachment 133637
> 
> RPG's are indeed physics engines, they are both about modelling a world, otherwise there would nothing there. Nevertheless this is beyond the OP thesis, as it is only about not wasting time trying to "fix" a system. It can circle back on a more jargonistic approach, however.



Are you at all familiar with PbtA games, or Forged in the Dark games, which are inarguably RPGs and also inarguably not physics engines?


----------



## dragoner (Mar 3, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> Are you at all familiar with PbtA games, or Forged in the Dark games, which are inarguably RPGs and also inarguably not physics engines?



So? Yes, I have played Apocalypse World, and "inarguably" sets off my spell check. Simple belief in something does not make it so, which is a sword that cuts both ways. However, in Apocalypse World, there was a "world" and there was the weird sex thing which was awkward with women players at my table, plus I am married and my wife is not a player in our games, not usually. Still there was a world there; also I have Forged in the Dark, and know of it, haven't read it yet. The alternate GM is more about those kind of games, like Fiasco, and Shab Al-Hiri Roach.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 3, 2021)

dragoner said:


> So? Yes, I have played Apocalypse World, and "inarguably" sets off my spell check. Simple belief in something does not make it so, which is a sword that cuts both ways. However, in Apocalypse World, there was a "world" and there was the weird sex thing which was awkward with women players at my table, plus I am married and my wife is not a player in our games, not usually. Still there was a world there; also I have Forged in the Dark, and know of it, haven't read it yet. The alternate GM is more about those kind of games, like Fiasco, and Shab Al-Hiri Roach.



Get a better spell checker? 

Not liking the games is perfectly fine, but they don't emulate physics as you've suggested.  Fiasco doesn't either.  So the main point here is that "RPGs are physics engines" is false, even if some may be (more properly, try to be).

Also, you perhaps meant Blades in the Dark rather than Forged?  FitD is a blanket term for many similar games that have grown out of Blades in the Dark, much like how Powered by the Apocalypse games grew out of Apocalypse World.


----------



## dragoner (Mar 3, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> Get a better spell checker?
> 
> Not liking the games is perfectly fine, but they don't emulate physics as you've suggested.  Fiasco doesn't either.  So the main point here is that "RPGs are physics engines" is false, even if some may be (more properly, try to be).
> 
> Also, you perhaps meant Blades in the Dark rather than Forged?  FitD is a blanket term for many similar games that have grown out of Blades in the Dark, much like how Powered by the Apocalypse games grew out of Apocalypse World.



I am always going to argue for inclusion vs elitism, that is the way it will be. Mostly GURPS gets tagged as being a physics engine for simulation, however, all rpg's are in their own way, as worlds are simulated for the characters are to interact with. Can you have a rpg without a setting or characters?

It is BitD, I mostly keep track of ones I am going to run, I mean we even have one GM that runs almost solely 5e, and I only recently bought the DMG and MM. I also bought the Starfinder core as I might become a player in a game of that, probably never run it though. Last game I ran was Classic Traveller, before that Mythras, M-Space, and Mongoose Traveller (lot of m's there). Don't really know what I am going to run next. Reading Mindjammer FATE right now also.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 3, 2021)

dragoner said:


> I am always going to argue for inclusion vs elitism, that is the way it will be. Mostly GURPS gets tagged as being a physics engine for simulation, however, all rpg's are in their own way, as worlds are simulated for the characters are to interact with. Can you have a rpg without a setting or characters?



I... what? I don't even follow this argument.  There's no exclusion or elitism in anything I've said, I'm merely pointing out that not all RPGs aspire to be physics engines.  That you've moved now to arguing about setting and characters is very, very strange to me, and suggests that we're not at all using the same definition of "physics engine".  


dragoner said:


> It is BitD, I mostly keep track of ones I am going to run, I mean we even have one GM that runs almost solely 5e, and I only recently bought the DMG and MM. I also bought the Starfinder core as I might become a player in a game of that, probably never run it though. Last game I ran was Classic Traveller, before that Mythras, M-Space, and Mongoose Traveller (lot of m's there). Don't really know what I am going to run next. Reading Mindjammer FATE right now also.



Okay.  Glad to hear you're having fun.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 3, 2021)

innerdude said:


> The problem with _rules as physics_ is that there are mountains of underlying assumptions in terms of process/playstyle that sit beneath that basic idea.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> It's not just a nuance. It's a fundamental assumption about what the purpose of play is in the first place.



innerdude, that was an epic _system matters_ post!


----------



## pemerton (Mar 3, 2021)

DrunkonDuty said:


> @pemerton Sorry, but I'm not following this part. Can you expand on the differences you see for clerics & paladins between 4th ed. on the one hand and the older editions on the other? And the role of (in game) providence in the differences?



My reasoning doesn't contradict @Ovinomancer's but is a bit different, or takes a slightly different perspective.

It begins with this question: _what is the meaning of the d20 roll?_ And the follow-up question that arises once the dice have been rolled and the consequence narrated: _what [in the fiction] caused the consequence to occur?_

The more that the game adopts a "rules as physics" orientation; the more that the d20 is taken to reflect or "model" the vagaries of luck and fortune; the more the GM establishes the fiction that surrounds all this based on his/her priorities and sense of the fiction rather than in a player/character-centred way; then the less the game will have a sense of providence at work, and the more it will seem like a world of cold, soul-less causation. (In literary terms this is the world of REH's Conan, with perhaps Hour of the Dragon as an exception.)

4e is the version of D&D that departs the most from the approach of the previous paragraph: the rules are for establishing outcomes and consequences, but they aren't treated as a model or "physics"; and the game places more emphasis on player/character-centred narration, whether coming from the GM or directly from the player. Which creates much more scope for the outcomes to be framed by the player (with the cooperation/support of the GM) as the workings of providence.

Here's a practical example (though the mechanic at issue in this particular example is not a d20 roll but an effect duration):



pemerton said:


> What had happened was that a cultists had hit the paladin of the Raven Queen with a Baleful Polymorph, turning the paladin into a frog until the end of the cultist's next turn. The players at the table didn't know how long this would last, although one (not the player of the paladin) was pretty confident that it wouldn't be that long, because the game doesn't have save-or-die.
> 
> Anyway, the end of the cultist's next turn duly came around, and I told the player of the paladin that he turned back to his normal form. He then took his turn, and made some threat or admonition against the cultist. The cultist responded with something to the effect of "You can't beat me - I turned you into a frog, after all!" The paladin's player had his PC retort "Ah, but the Raven Queen turned me back."
> 
> There we have an example of a player taking narrative control on the back of an NPC's mechanic that the player knew nothing of until encountering it in the course of actual play. And at least for me, as a GM, that is the player of the paladin playing his role. And driving the story forward. On the back of a so-called "dissociated" mechanic.




In a rules-as-physics-type game this wouldn't make sense, because it is part of the causal logic of the effect itself that means the polymorphed paladin turns back into a human.

Whereas the approach of 4e permits the player to establish the narration that he did around those events: turning back into a human is a manifestation of divinity at work.


----------



## dragoner (Mar 3, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> I... what? I don't even follow this argument.  There's no exclusion or elitism in anything I've said, I'm merely pointing out that not all RPGs aspire to be physics engines.  That you've moved now to arguing about setting and characters is very, very strange to me, and suggests that we're not at all using the same definition of "physics engine".
> 
> Okay.  Glad to hear you're having fun.



Indeed, it is the name of the game. 

Not to slight Ron Edwards either, as I follow him on fb, think we are friends; but he has talked of things he has said being used in an elitist manner. Physics engine does sound somewhat jargonistic, I mean physics to me is just the study of the natural world, something rpg's emulate as well. Then again I learned math much easier than english, and yet here we are.


----------



## DrunkonDuty (Mar 4, 2021)

@pemerton Thanks for the explanation.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 4, 2021)

dragoner said:


> Indeed, it is the name of the game.
> 
> Not to slight Ron Edwards either, as I follow him on fb, think we are friends; but he has talked of things he has said being used in an elitist manner.



Um, okay.  I didn't quote Ron Edwards.  


dragoner said:


> Physics engine does sound somewhat jargonistic, I mean physics to me is just the study of the natural world, something rpg's emulate as well. Then again I learned math much easier than english, and yet here we are.



I dunno about how you play, but study of the natural world isn't something I've done in an RPG.  I'm not following whatever it is you're laying down, I guess.  When people use "physical engine," the thing to comes to mind is a process to create physical results in the game world.  This is notably used in the video game industry to talk about the physics simulation engine in a game.  Upthread, @Emirikol was referring to being able to suss out game rules in the game world because they were discoverable and repeatable (my phrasing).  I'm still not at all sure what it is you're referring to, though.


----------



## innerdude (Mar 4, 2021)

First off, it would seem that the division between those claiming "RPG mechanics act as physics engines" and those claiming "RPG mechanics do not always act as physics engines" should prove beyond reasonable doubt that _system matters_.

(Truthfully, I would have significant doubts about an individual who claimed the contrary. Despite any sincerity and good intentions he or she exhibited, I'd probably find their playstyle to be problematic at best for what I'm looking for in RPG play.)

But thinking through the "rules as physics" thought process a bit more --- Is there value in trying to create "associative" rules that could be perceived as a form of "knowledge" within the shared fiction? Generally speaking, I'd say yes. RPG play relies on having some level of agreement about the constraints that operate as boundaries on the limits of the fiction.

But this is only one part of generating fictional positioning.

Consider the classic RPG declaration, "Rocks fall, you die." And let's say this declaration is pointed at a particular fictional character, Bob the Fighter.

At this point, what is to be considered about this declaration? What factors determine its "truthiness" or "falsiness"?

If you want to break down the "physics" of that declaration further---how heavy the rock is (as represented/abstracted in the number of d6 of damage it deals when it falls), how far it fell, whether the situation warrants such a declaration as being possible at all without supernatural interposition ("Gee, how'd those rocks get there in the first place?")---are ultimately only possible considerations around determining whether Bob is now dead or still alive. The real question is, where does the final authority lie in determining the "truthiness" of the declaration?

Obviously, Bob's player is fully capable of proposing an alternative declaration---"No, Bob isn't dead."

Once again, any "physics" applied to the evaluating this counter-declaration are only points of reference. Do the "rules as physics" say that situationally, Bob the Fighter can dodge said rock? How effectively is this dodge opportunity measured? How much harm does he avoid if he does dodge it? Is it possible that Bob's opposing strength (represented as the "physics" of oppositional force) means he can simply catch the rock and hurl it away? Can Bob's player declare an equal enforcement of supernatural interposition ("At the last second, the rock inexplicably moves 25 feet to the side and tumbles away harmlessly")?

_Physics as rules_ are only one frame of reference for fiction state negotiation. They do not possess an inherent, naturally derived, superior position to other considerations of what should be true in the fiction.

They are merely markers, or anchors, or suggestions on _who has the authority, and when_ to suggest what is or is not true.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 4, 2021)

innerdude said:


> First off, it would seem that the division between those claiming "RPG mechanics act as physics engines" and those claiming "RPG mechanics do not always act as physics engines" should prove beyond reasonable doubt that _system matters_.
> 
> (Truthfully, I would have significant doubts about an individual who claimed the contrary. Despite any sincerity and good intentions he or she exhibited, I'd probably find their playstyle to be problematic at best for what I'm looking for in RPG play.)
> 
> ...



Yup.  A more erudite version of the points I was trying to make.


----------



## dragoner (Mar 4, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> Um, okay.  I didn't quote Ron Edwards.
> 
> I dunno about how you play, but study of the natural world isn't something I've done in an RPG.  I'm not following whatever it is you're laying down, I guess.  When people use "physical engine," the thing to comes to mind is a process to create physical results in the game world.  This is notably used in the video game industry to talk about the physics simulation engine in a game.  Upthread, @Emirikol was referring to being able to suss out game rules in the game world because they were discoverable and repeatable (my phrasing).  I'm still not at all sure what it is you're referring to, though.



The op links to Edwards' blog, he is system matters.

So you play with not having an idea of the rules and even "to suss out" the rules is bad? Hmm, that's cool, you do you. We do indeed play differently, as I like to have some sort of working knowledge of them; usually for me it is wander around and interact with the environment in game, while having a beer, and a laugh with friends.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 4, 2021)

dragoner said:


> The op links to Edwards' blog, he is system matters.



It links to Jon Peterson's blog.  Edwards isn't even mentioned in the OP.  I think that @pemerton may have quoted him at some point in this thread, but that would be it.  I didn't refer to Edwards at all, and you brought that up while quoting me.  I must say, this exchange is terribly confusing, mostly because I can't even track where you're coming from.


dragoner said:


> So you play with not having an idea of the rules and even "to suss out" the rules is bad? Hmm, that's cool, you do you. We do indeed play differently, as I like to have some sort of working knowledge of them; usually for me it is wander around and interact with the environment in game, while having a beer, and a laugh with friends.



Uh, what?  Where did you get that.  Of course I like to know the rules, but I know them as a player, not a character in the game.  At this point, you've moved topics in every response, and I'm still not sure what you're trying to get to.  Maybe it's me, in which case, someone please lend a hand?  My translator appears to be on the fritz.

EDIT:  ah, the blog the OP links to links to Edward's blog.  This needs one of those _Inception _BWAAAAAAs.


----------



## dragoner (Mar 4, 2021)

Link to it in the op: The Forge :: System Does Matter and Vincent Baker of Pbta is also part of that scene, I am surprised you didn't know that? You should read it, that probably is why you feel confused, or not. 

For translations, try yandex or google, though I also speak Russian, Czech, and German to some degree.


----------



## TheAlkaizer (Mar 4, 2021)

The simplest proof that systems matter is the fact that people play with systems at all. If did not matter at all, players would absolutely drift towards the least incovenient and easiest solution which would be no system at all. You can argue that you can play anything with one system and that it does not really make a different to move to a different one is actually arguing against your own argument.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 4, 2021)

dragoner said:


> Link to it in the op: The Forge :: System Does Matter and Vincent Baker of Pbta is also part of that scene, I am surprised you didn't know that? You should read it, that probably is why you feel confused, or not.
> 
> For translations, try yandex or google, though I also speak Russian, Czech, and German to some degree.



That's not what the OP links to, although the blog the OP does link to has a link to that essay.  Intuiting that you mean the second level of linking is what prompted my _Inception _comment above.   I'm also aware of Vincent Baker's roots, not sure what made you jump to the conclusion I wasn't, when what I did say was that I didn't reference Edwards and that the OP doesn't link him, so your comment was a non sequitur.  Now I understand that you somehow jumped from my point about PbtA not being a physics engine to Vincent Baker being the author of AW to Vincent being part of the Forge discussions to Ron Edwards having blogged on a similar topic to the OP to now assuming that I know nothing of any of this because I didn't follow this chain of logic which you did not share.

And, no, the translation problem is not the language, but rather the baffling structure of your posts and the way they alternate between odd direction shifts, leaps in topic, and unsubstantiated assumptions about what I think or do.  Trust me:  I'll tell you, you needn't guess.


----------



## dragoner (Mar 4, 2021)

It is a simple truth that it does matter, in particular to mechanics of why try to fix things when there is system that does what you want anyways. It is also true in what you learn first can have an effect on how you learn things later, I still see westerners do things, which do not make a lot of sense but then I just think that's what they do and move on.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 4, 2021)

TheAlkaizer said:


> The simplest proof that systems matter is the fact that people play with systems at all. If did not matter at all, players would absolutely drift towards the least incovenient and easiest solution which would be no system at all. You can argue that you can play anything with one system and that it does not really make a different to move to a different one is actually arguing against your own argument.



This does seem obvious, but... it's apparently not.  Interestingly, the second link to Ron Edwards in Jon Peterson's blog post (which is what's linked in the OP, if confusion remains anywhere) discusses a possible theory as to why this may be.  Unfortunately, like a lot of Forge discussions, it's very unflattering to the point of insulting at times, which hides that there's an excellent point in there -- that people are often conditioned as to what RPG means, get locked into that mindset, and then have difficulty, if not hostility, to learning alternative concepts.


----------



## TheAlkaizer (Mar 4, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> This does seem obvious, but... it's apparently not.  Interestingly, the second link to Ron Edwards in Jon Peterson's blog post (which is what's linked in the OP, if confusion remains anywhere) discusses a possible theory as to why this may be.  Unfortunately, like a lot of Forge discussions, it's very unflattering to the point of insulting at times, which hides that there's an excellent point in there -- that people are often conditioned as to what RPG means, get locked into that mindset, and then have difficulty, if not hostility, to learning alternative concepts.




What would the alternative be? If we take any kind of fixed or written rules (no matter the complexity) as a system, the alternative would be an entirely organic, or free form and chaotic form of play? Would power dynamics and a natural order emerge in that free form of play? A different kind of system?


----------



## dragoner (Mar 4, 2021)

There are freeform rpg sites and forums, a fairly large community. I run an sfrpg group on fb, and we get them joining, and being confused it is not a story telling, writing environment such as that. I also belong to writing groups as well.

edit: Here is one - RP Forums - Index page


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 4, 2021)

TheAlkaizer said:


> What would the alternative be? If we take any kind of fixed or written rules (no matter the complexity) as a system, the alternative would be an entirely organic, or free form and chaotic form of play? Would power dynamics and a natural order emerge in that free form of play? A different kind of system?



I think we have a misunderstanding.  I agree with you, but, as shown in this thread and elsewhere, many don't.  I was discussing some of the reasons that they might not, and it boils down to a conditioned mindset that there's only one approach to RPGs, and all that changes in system do is fiddle with the details.  Thus, system doesn't really matter because it's really just a matter of details - the core play is still the same.  If you think all games are Monopoly, because you've only ever played versions of Monopoly, then this is an understandable position.  In effect, this conditioned approach to RPGs is the default assumption for how all RPGs work, so system is fundamentally the same.  

I mean, if you were introduced to RPGs through D&D, and have played D&D primarily, maybe with some dabbling in some other d20 games, then, yeah, these systems are all very similar in approach and the core play loop is pretty much the same.  You have to wander further afield and take some risks on other systems to really get to games that don't look at all like D&D.  

I also think there's a difference between a game that does have a system and ones that are just ad hoc negotiations.  Having a conflict resolution system, even if it's as simple as 'what Bob says goes' does separate out from free-form make believe.  It changes things into a game, or, at least, is a necessary step in that direction.  Play is not the same as Game.  This is, however, a quibble.


----------



## TheAlkaizer (Mar 4, 2021)

dragoner said:


> There are freeform rpg sites and forums, a fairly large community. I run an sfrpg group on fb, and we get them joining, and being confused it is not a story telling, writing environment such as that. I also belong to writing groups as well.
> 
> edit: Here is one - RP Forums - Index page



I got experience with RP like that.

Could I compose a roleplay message and, without consulting anyone, describe how your character dies spontaneously?


----------



## dragoner (Mar 4, 2021)

TheAlkaizer said:


> I got experience with RP like that.
> 
> Could I compose a roleplay message and, without consulting anyone, describe how your character dies spontaneously?



That would be weird, never heard of that, such as if you mean someone else's character? I think someone would take it badly, imo.


----------



## TheAlkaizer (Mar 4, 2021)

dragoner said:


> That would be weird, never heard of that, such as if you mean someone else's character? I think someone would take it badly, imo.



I'm asking because every RP I've been part of had rules, or at least implicit rules about what could be or not be done. In the end, it is a system. Just the fact that the support/platform forces you to make separate posts and wait for replies forces a structure and becomes a system.



Ovinomancer said:


> I think we have a misunderstanding.  I agree with you, but, as shown in this thread and elsewhere, many don't.  I was discussing some of the reasons that they might not, and it boils down to a conditioned mindset that there's only one approach to RPGs, and all that changes in system do is fiddle with the details.  Thus, system doesn't really matter because it's really just a matter of details - the core play is still the same.  If you think all games are Monopoly, because you've only ever played versions of Monopoly, then this is an understandable position.  In effect, this conditioned approach to RPGs is the default assumption for how all RPGs work, so system is fundamentally the same.
> 
> I mean, if you were introduced to RPGs through D&D, and have played D&D primarily, maybe with some dabbling in some other d20 games, then, yeah, these systems are all very similar in approach and the core play loop is pretty much the same.  You have to wander further afield and take some risks on other systems to really get to games that don't look at all like D&D.
> 
> I also think there's a difference between a game that does have a system and ones that are just ad hoc negotiations.  Having a conflict resolution system, even if it's as simple as 'what Bob says goes' does separate out from free-form make believe.  It changes things into a game, or, at least, is a necessary step in that direction.  Play is not the same as Game.  This is, however, a quibble.



I see. I think I get the argument.

So it's not stating that they could play with one system and never switch because systems inherently don't matter and we could do without them, but more like saying that in the end all systems end up to the same place (the same core experience) and that it's only a matter of preference in the details?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 4, 2021)

TheAlkaizer said:


> I got experience with RP like that.
> 
> Could I compose a roleplay message and, without consulting anyone, describe how your character dies spontaneously?



I think this can happen with disturbing frequency in D&D.  Frustrated GM announces rocks fall, everyone dies.


----------



## dragoner (Mar 4, 2021)

TheAlkaizer said:


> I'm asking because every RP I've been part of had rules, or at least implicit rules about what could be or not be done. In the end, it is a system. Just the fact that the support/platform forces you to make separate posts and wait for replies forces a structure and becomes a system.
> 
> 
> I see. I think I get the argument.
> ...



That is similar to my opinion up thread, that in a final sense, it is about preference. I mean there are details in there, such is hacking a system bad? I don't think so. Also the reason why someone might hack a system is that they might want to run something different, but the players don't want to learn a new system. Some people from my group have run an anime campaign with pathfinder, I didn't play, but it sounded a lot like supers as well. Not my cup of tea, but they had fun. I think that the system matters and gns theory arguments wound up in a bad place and even Edwards and Baker signed off, saying they didn't mean to start something like that.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 4, 2021)

TheAlkaizer said:


> I'm asking because every RP I've been part of had rules, or at least implicit rules about what could be or not be done. In the end, it is a system. Just the fact that the support/platform forces you to make separate posts and wait for replies forces a structure and becomes a system.
> 
> 
> I see. I think I get the argument.
> ...



Not quite.  It's the belief that all systems are functionally the same and the difference is only in the details.  The (poor) boardgame analogy to this is that all games are Monopoly, the only real difference is if you're playing Lord of the Rings Monopoly or Alabama Football Monopoly or some other version of Monopoly.  The details change, but the system is still the same.

This is thwarted when you run into games that aren't Monopoly, and don't play like Monopoly, like, say Spades (a trick-taking card game, for those not familiar).  When confronted with this, the Monopoly player will usually react with trying to understand Spades as a variant of Monopoly, and importing their understanding of Monopoly play into Spades as much as possible. This is incompatible, so Spades gets labelled as poorly written, a bad game, not a true game just a card game (like Storygame), or just ignored as an option.

Now, obviously, this metaphor is tortured, and bad, but hopefully gets the point across.  It's not that all systems are the same -- they are not -- or have the same core play loop -- they do not -- but that you can get into a situation where your experience with system is limited to a set that are similar and have the same core play loop.  This gets even more entrenched when most of the popular game titles are similar in this regard.  There's little difference in the actual core play of World of Darkness and Dungeons and Dragons -- usually it's a GM led story that the players participate in as much as the GM allows.  That's brutal, yes, but not unfun, as it's exactly how I run 5e with this foreknowledge.  I'm running Descent into Avernus right now, and that's about as prebaked a story the players participate in as allowed as you can get (other APs aside).  But, it's fun!  However, when my group gets back to Blades in the Dark, this play doesn't exist -- I can't prewrite a story outline in Blades, the system will eat it up and spit it out in the first five minutes of play.  The only way I can do so is to break that system.  So, system matters, but it's hard to see if you've never stepped outside of a similar set of games.


----------



## TheAlkaizer (Mar 4, 2021)

dragoner said:


> That is similar to my opinion up thread, that in a final sense, it is about preference. I mean there are details in there, such is hacking a system bad? I don't think so. Also the reason why someone might hack a system is that they might want to run something different, but the players don't want to learn a new system. Some people from my group have run an anime campaign with pathfinder, I didn't play, but it sounded a lot like supers as well. Not my cup of tea, but they had fun. I think that the system matters and gns theory arguments wound up in a bad place and even Edwards and Baker signed off, saying they didn't mean to start something like that.




I understand. It makes sense in a way.

But I disagree. The system is the game mechanics, and it's hard to deny that mechanics create dynamics, which have a huge impact on the experience. Sure, the experience of playing 5E and let's say Pathfinder 2E are, at their core, quite similar. It would be hard for an outsider to tell the difference. But the same argument could be made for board games of similar genres. From an outsider perspective, players playing Risk and Diplomacy would probably look very similar, but the dynamics created by the mechanics make for a very different experience.

I'm not sure. I know I disagree, but I'm not sure that was a good example. Is the fact that some people enjoy crunch and others not a _proof_ that not all playing dynamics leads to the same place? Or maybe they do and the crunch is the travel and not the destination. Maybe I'm arguing myself and proving myself wrong.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 4, 2021)

TheAlkaizer said:


> I understand. It makes sense in a way.
> 
> But I disagree. The system is the game mechanics, and it's hard to deny that mechanics create dynamics, which have a huge impact on the experience. Sure, the experience of playing 5E and let's say Pathfinder 2E are, at their core, quite similar. It would be hard for an outsider to tell the difference. But the same argument could be made for board games of similar genres. From an outsider perspective, players playing Risk and Diplomacy would probably look very similar, but the dynamics created by the mechanics make for a very different experience.



This is valid, but it fails to defeat the argument that Pathfinder is just a hack onto D&D.  You could do the same thing with houserules, if you put in the time.  I don't agree with this argument, and this your point is valid, even if the difference is slight, but this is not a strong argument in the face of "system doesn't matter."

To help clarify your thinking, the difference between 5e and P2e is really in what play is incentivized in each.  I'm not super familiar with P2e, but, from what I've gathered, it does incentivize different things by how it's character build is done, how it instantiated conflict resolution, and in how you earn rewards (xp, loot, etc).  This leads to different play, even if, largely, the incentive structures for each are very similar.


TheAlkaizer said:


> I'm not sure. I know I disagree, but I'm not sure that was a good example. Is the fact that some people enjoy crunch and others not a _proof_ that not all playing dynamics leads to the same place? Or maybe they do and the crunch is the travel and not the destination. Maybe I'm arguing myself and proving myself wrong.



The reality, in my experience, is that the difference between the crunch and fluff players of a given game are the relative comfort levels towards ignoring the system.  Most tables have places where they just outright ignore the system and do something else, especially in games where the resolution engine is unevenly applied.  Like in D&D, where the resolution engine for combat is far more details and play facing than the resolution engine for social encounters (which is pretty much "the GM will tell you what happens").  Don't underestimate just how much ignoring the system and then not recognizing this is what happens muddies this topic.  Usually, when system is ignored, it's not noticed that you just ignored the system and applied something ad hoc.  This is, largely, something that's indoctrinated into players in most games.  5e even officially embraces it!  Although, it's not put this bluntly there.


----------



## dragoner (Mar 4, 2021)

TheAlkaizer said:


> I understand. It makes sense in a way.
> 
> But I disagree. The system is the game mechanics, and it's hard to deny that mechanics create dynamics, which have a huge impact on the experience. Sure, the experience of playing 5E and let's say Pathfinder 2E are, at their core, quite similar. It would be hard for an outsider to tell the difference. But the same argument could be made for board games of similar genres. From an outsider perspective, players playing Risk and Diplomacy would probably look very similar, but the dynamics created by the mechanics make for a very different experience.
> 
> I'm not sure. I know I disagree, but I'm not sure that was a good example. Is the fact that some people enjoy crunch and others not a _proof_ that not all playing dynamics leads to the same place? Or maybe they do and the crunch is the travel and not the destination. Maybe I'm arguing myself and proving myself wrong.



If that same place everything is leading to is measured by being happy, or entertained, then preference is key. Different people want different experiences from their gaming, nothing wrong with that. If using the systems matters argument as a dialectic to decide what you like personally, then it is great. If using it to judge other people's game preferences, then it is wrong.

Even then one can be a sinner against what one believes, I also ran a CoC 6e game not too long ago, and with other games I have run like Mythras or M-Space it almost makes me a big BRP GM, though I really don't think of myself as such, it is just that BRP gives me enough of what I like with skills and I deal with what I don't like, because in the balance what I like about it is better to me. We have another GM that runs almost strictly 5e, and while it's not my favorite game, it is fun, and I have thought of running a simple campaign with 5e, but I would not do that without asking him first so as to not steal his thunder.


----------



## innerdude (Mar 4, 2021)

The hardest, hardest, concept / mental block for me in getting deeper into the realm of exploring how and why _system matters_ was the recognition that yes, it really is possible to separate _causation _or _rules as physics _from the game without the game completely breaking down.

And I don't quite know how or when it finally clicked for me. It took a lot of banging my head against posts by @pemerton and @Manbearcat and @chaochou to figure out just what in the name of Baker and Edwards they were talking about. 

What do you mean, you can just allow a player make a declaration and _suddenly it just becomes true in the fiction_? How can that possibly be allowed? That breaks all boundaries of "verisimilitude" and "immersion" and "consistency of the world."

I don't know how it finally stuck in my head, but the biggest part of the shift was the realization that the shared fiction was just that---_shared_. And not only shared, but _constructed_.

When something is _constructed_, it necessarily means that the persons doing the _constructing_ are going to be the ones who exert the most influence over how that construction is used. The game fiction doesn't exist in a vacuum.

If the GM's views of how the fiction should be constructed were seen as privileged, it was by _assent_ _of the group_, not by any inherent position of privilege. If the fiction is constructed---created by the participants---then the real issue is no longer just the rules in and of themselves, but the process around _how the group reaches consensus/assent around what is constructed. _

For whatever reason this idea was revelatory. It had never occurred to me from 1985 until 2012 that the rules' purpose isn't to be "fair" or "prevent power gaming" (though those are potentially useful metrics on an individual scale), it's to provide an avenue for group assent to _what is allowed into the fictional construct._

This had a huge impact on how I viewed RPG systems. Arguing about the minutiae of a particular PC build, or a particular spell effect, or a particular feat/edge were no longer viewed solely on "game balance" and "verisimilitude," but also from the lens of the interplay of control of the construct---what are the participants required to assent to for the mechanic to work as intended, and what constraints on the construct does that assent introduce?

It was as if I had been looking at ground telescope imagery of the galaxy, and suddenly had access to the Hubble telescope. You're looking at the same "stuff," but the view from which you behold it is an entirely different thing. All at once the assumptions behind the long-standing "GM-as-storyteller and enforcer of world consistency" were laid bare. 

Suddenly the context of power gaming made significantly more sense---yes, power gaming was often seen as rude, inconsiderate, and generally a "bad faith" form of play, but the real reason it becomes pernicious is because in nearly all cases the group has _a priori _assented to the idea that _propositions to change the fictional construct must necessarily be true if those changes are brought in through application of the written rules. _Power gaming is "bad" because it allows the power gamer to exert more control over the content of the shared fiction. It allows them to introduce new factors into the construct, or to revise or revert existing factors. And eventually a value judgment has to be made; either the group has to assent to what has been constructed, or it has to be torn down. 

I could see why 25+ years of playing nothing but Dungeons and Dragons had led to the same basic game formula / experience almost every time. And I realized that if I really wanted something different from a "D&D experience," that I was going to have to play something besides D&D. 

Mechanics, action resolution, systems of magic, fighting styles, damage models and healing are conceptions of how, why, and when to allow (and disallow) change to the fictional construct. If they happen to bear a resemblance to the physics within the gameworld, it may be intentional on the part of the designer, but ultimately incidental to what's really at stake---control of the fiction.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 4, 2021)

innerdude said:


> Consider the classic RPG declaration, "Rocks fall, you die." And let's say this declaration is pointed at a particular fictional character, Bob the Fighter.
> 
> At this point, what is to be considered about this declaration? What factors determine its "truthiness" or "falsiness"?
> 
> ...



Would you agree that this is all just Vincent Baker 101?


----------



## Emerikol (Mar 4, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> I'm not convinced your method of "thinking it through" is really anything different from being arbitrary, though.



Well we've probably at one time or another here or on the D&D boards years ago, debated this ad infinitum.   For purposes of "system matters", even if it is arbitrary, it still matters right?   I mean if rule X totally breaks my immersion but rule Y doesn't that still means it affects the game.  That still means system matters.   And sure any game can be fixed and yes games are a continuum on the scale of acceptability.  Not everything is absolutely perfect or absolutely intolerable.

So mechanical things like HD, surges, etc... are elements that don't "feel" right to me.  The fiction doesn't adequately explain them to me even within the constraints of a super heroic fantasy concept.   They may explain them fine to you but not to me.   It really is a matter of perspective.  Yet I'm sure many can't accept that.   There is a reason so many play OSR games.  My guess is one of those reasons is my reason.   I mean fun is a subjective concept is it not?

I'm sure we could have this same debate about some tv shows.  I might say such and such tv show is just too far fetched to me.  And then you might respond but you watch this other show and it's even more far fetched to me.   Yeah we don't agree.   It's subjective.


----------



## Emerikol (Mar 4, 2021)

TheAlkaizer said:


> The simplest proof that systems matter is the fact that people play with systems at all. If did not matter at all, players would absolutely drift towards the least inconvenient and easiest solution which would be no system at all. You can argue that you can play anything with one system and that it does not really make a different to move to a different one is actually arguing against your own argument.



While I agree they might gravitate to a particular system, I would argue no system is really just the system that emerges after sufficient numbers of GM adjudications.  So really there is no such thing as no system.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Mar 4, 2021)

System matters, yes.  But how you play is still more important than what you play.  You can use the "wrong" system for the kind of game it was never intended for and have the time of your life.  You can use the "right" system designed by experienced award winners for precisely the kind of game it was intended for and it might still suck.  The creativity and investment of the players will trump system every time IME.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 4, 2021)

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> System matters, yes.  But how you play is still more important than what you play.  You can use the "wrong" system for the kind of game it was never intended for and have the time of your life.  You can use the "right" system designed by experienced award winners for precisely the kind of game it was intended for and it might still suck.  The creativity and investment of the players will trump system every time IME.



If system is trumped by creativity and investment of the players alone, every time, then this actively counters your opening that system does matter.  I mean, I'm a creative and usually invested player, and I've been in games where the system was poorly aligned to the play goals and no amount of my creativity or investment could overcome this -- unless the table chose to ignore the system.  I usually find that the argument that creativity can trump system is really smuggling in the argument that you can always ignore the system and do whatever you want.  This doesn't "trump" system, but rather abandons it and substitutes in some other bit of play.  It notes that system does indeed matter, so much that you have to throw it out the window to do what you want.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 4, 2021)

Emerikol said:


> Well we've probably at one time or another here or on the D&D boards years ago, debated this ad infinitum.   For purposes of "system matters", even if it is arbitrary, it still matters right?   I mean if rule X totally breaks my immersion but rule Y doesn't that still means it affects the game.  That still means system matters.   And sure any game can be fixed and yes games are a continuum on the scale of acceptability.  Not everything is absolutely perfect or absolutely intolerable.



I was more pointing to the fact that your choice of metric was just personal preference, and not elevated by leaning on the "rules" in any way, not that it isn't an extremely valid method of selecting a game system to play.  Preference is, ultimately, the only means of doing so.


Emerikol said:


> So mechanical things like HD, surges, etc... are elements that don't "feel" right to me.  The fiction doesn't adequately explain them to me even within the constraints of a super heroic fantasy concept.   They may explain them fine to you but not to me.   It really is a matter of perspective.  Yet I'm sure many can't accept that.   There is a reason so many play OSR games.  My guess is one of those reasons is my reason.   I mean fun is a subjective concept is it not?



I'm not sure you're fully up on OSR, if you think they're primary goals align with yours.  Some of it does, for sure, but some of it doesn't at all and yet is still OSR.  From your statements here, you place high value on the rules simulating a believable fictional state.  It might strike you as odd, but I also place a high value on this.  The difference is in how that process takes place, I think. 

I'm perfectly fine with fortune in the middle concepts -- with resolving some of the fiction of an action after the result of the action is known.  I suspect you are not (and this is fine).  You prefer an approach where the dice only decide after everything is nailed down.  This is the primary resolution method of D&D (4e having notable exceptions).  I think it's shared, in large part, with the reification of game terms into the fiction, like a 'mis



Emerikol said:


> I'm sure we could have this same debate about some tv shows.  I might say such and such tv show is just too far fetched to me.  And then you might respond but you watch this other show and it's even more far fetched to me.   Yeah we don't agree.   It's subjective.



That I don't care about at all.  100% fine with people liking different games.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Mar 4, 2021)

Emerikol said:


> Remember we are discussing multiple play styles.  The fact you do not does not mean no one does.  That is the whole crux of the matter.
> 
> Now, also remember that even if a DM would adjudicate an outcome without playing it out as they likely would, they would do so based on the rules and not the real world.   In D&D, if a 20th level fighter is surrounded and attacked by 20 1st level fighters he will mop the floor with them.  We might agree this is unlikely in the real world.  Let's posit it is even if you disagree for purposes of this discussion.  The DM is going to know off camera a battle occurred between the 20th level fighter and the 1st level fighters.  He won't play it out but he will resolve it based on his knowledge of the rules.   At least in my own way of playing.



And this is I think the major point of difference. The surrounded fighter will not mop the floor with the 20 level 1 fighters because he's a 20th level fighter. The powerful fighter is a 20th level fighter because he will mop the floor with the 20 level 1 fighters. The rules aren't a physics engine - they are a user interface.

To use another example, in Star Wars SAGA, Luke Skywalker (RotJ era) is apparently a human Scout 1/Jedi 7/Ace Pilot 2/Jedi Knight 1 and CL 11. By your way of thinking under a rules as physics model it is being level 11 character with 7 ranks of Jedi and 1 of Jedi Knight that lets Luke do things with The Force.

My way of thinking, rules as user interface, is that the Star Wars Saga Edition was published 24 years after Return of the Jedi. The idea that Luke can do ... anything ... he did in Return of the Jedi because of some RPG rules published almost a quarter of a century later is ridiculous and violates the laws of causality. The rules are, instead, intended to approximate the Star Wars setting that predated the Star Wars SAGA RPG rules and to make it easier to approximate that setting. And if I want Luke Skywalker to do something to do he does in the film that the rules don't cover then the rules are the issue.

I don't see my position on the Star Wars Saga rules and their relation to Star Wars canon to be unreasonable in the slightest. The setting is core, and the rules exist as a user interface to allow the player characters to interact with relevant (but not all; the Death Star doesn't need space battle combat stats as far as normal PCs are concerned) parts of the setting.

And I don't see a practical difference from either side of the screen between playing in the Star Wars setting and playing in most D&D settings (other than Order of the Stick) other than D&D specific settings are inspired by the D&D rules - and the rules are then used to approximate the setting.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 4, 2021)

Emerikol said:


> when a gargantuan reptilian creature swats you with his tail, in our world you would likely go bouncing across the ground and not get back up. In most versions of D&D, you would get back up and perhaps go slay that dragon with a sword.
> 
> So the point is games are not reality. Games lay down different ground rules. The world either reflects those ground rules or ignores them entirely and pretends things are like our world despite facts to the contrary in the world. The rules might even only apply to PCs and the rest of the world is more normal (well as normal as possible given magic).



I think I'm a bit more sympathetic to you than @Ovinomancer is, perhaps because I spent 19 years playing Rolemaster as my primary system.

In RM, for instance, spells are divided into "lists" that - in D&D terms - can be seen to correspond to different spell-casting classes. And so just like you said about a wizard or druid in your D&D game, in RM a character can talk about what spell lists s/he has been traind in; magical tomes can be discovered from which a person might learn a new spell list; etc.

This can be contrasted with 4e D&D: in 4e the categories of Arcane, Divine, Primal and Psionic _are_ part of the fiction - that's the whole point of those keywords - but the individual powers don't need to be thought of in in-fiction terms. (An exception to this is some wizard's spells, which can be written down in spell books that are part of the fiction, just like in other versions of D&D.)

This is even moreso for martial powers: the fighter in my group's long-running 4e game was a polearm AoE forced-movement specialist, and had a range of powers, enhanced by feats and magic, that let him attack multiple targets and knock them away, lure them in, and/or take them down. At the table each time the player declared an attack he was using a discrete power; but in the fiction there was no reason to think of it in those terms - he was just a super-buff dwarven polearm master doing his thing, wrongfooting and then slaughtering his enemies with his deft polearm work.

But now here is where I agree with @Ovinomancer: a system that is going to support the in-fiction approach that you prefer, or alternatively a system that is going to support the more metagame approach found in 4e, needs to be _consistent_ if it is going to do that. And Ovinomancer's point about dragons vs giants in D&D is (for me) a telling one: in the fiction there is really nothing to distinguish between being tail-swiped by a dragon and being hit by a rock thrown by a giant, but in 5e - based on my reading of the SRD - only the latter can knock you flat (and only if thrown by a stone giant at that).

Compare this to RM, where these similar attacks are all resolved on a similar table doing similar crits (Impact or Krush) and so all have the same sort of likelihood of causing knockback, or breaking limbs, etc.

Even AD&D has idiosyncrasies like the 5e one I just pointed to: purple worms and sperm whales can swallow you whole but dragon turtles can't. Why not? There's no in-fiction logic to it that I can see.

To me it seems that D&D uses these special abilities (knockdown, knockback, swallow whole, etc) not to create a sense of what is possible in the fiction but to create particular stories associated with particular creatures. Character abilities are the same, it seems to me - with the ranger's ability to use crystal balls, or a paladin's ability to heal with a touch, being prime examples from AD&D.

This is what I found so strong about 4e compared to 3E D&D. Whereas the latter seemed to want to move towards RM - with its skill ranks and combat manoeuvre rules and the like - but still kept the D&Disms that get in the way of that, 4e really embraced the notion that particular abilities, be they on PCs or on NPCs/creatures, are about _the story of this game element_, not _the physics of the world_.

For someone who liked those aspects of the classic versions of D&D but had little interest in "skilled play", 4e D&D was D&D done right!

For rules-as-physics, on the other hand, I would always go to a system like RM or HARP or RuneQuest. But these systems don't produce the gonzo variation of effects you see in D&D precisely because of the consistency of the fiction their systems produce.

Another system which has a strong rules-as-physics element to it is Burning Wheel (especially its full melee combat system). In some ways I think BW is easy to drift to for a RM player - it has intricate PC build including the familiar skill ranks, bloody combat with a death spiral, and a general tendency towards universal resolution rather than discrete abilities and sub-systems for each creature or each spell. It still ensures variety in the fiction, like D&D and much more reliably than RM I would say, but via its approach to consequence narration which sits alongside rather than overriding its rules-as-physics aspects.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 4, 2021)

innerdude said:


> Mechanics, action resolution, systems of magic, fighting styles, damage models and healing are conceptions of how, why, and when to allow (and disallow) change to the fictional construct. If they happen to bear a resemblance to the physics within the gameworld, it may be intentional on the part of the designer, but ultimately incidental to what's really at stake---control of the fiction.



100% right.

This is why barbs like "martial mind control" (for Come and Get It) or "shouting limbs back on" (for Inspiring Word) seem so inane and inapt.

CaGI means that _the GM_ isn't able to unilaterally control how the NPCs move. In the fiction, why did they move as they did? Maybe they were tricked or lured. Maybe they were wrong-footed or feinted (that's how I normally imagined it when the polearm fighter in our game used CaGI). To get to _martial mind control_ you have to put in some extra premise - along the lines of _the only time a player can affect what a NPC does is if the player's character has gained the ability to control the mind of the NPC_ - which is not a necessary truth of RPGing, obviously not self-evident, and in the context of many RPG, including 4e, obviously false.

An obvious implication of Inspiring Word being part of the ruleset is that hit point restoration _is not_ a correlate of limbs regrowing in the fiction. Which further entails that hit point loss does not necessarily correlate, in the fiction, to maiming or other severe physical injury. This evident truth is reinforced by the fact that hit points can be restored by getting one's second wind or taking a short rest. It does _not_ follow that sword fights _never_ cause serious injury. Rather, it follows that whether _a fight in which PCs participate causes serious injury_ can't be established, as part of the shared fiction, until subsequent matters, including the use of healing abilities, are determined. This is only a problem if one adopts, as an additional premise, _the full content of the fiction associated with some moment of mechanical resolution must be established at the moment of resolution_. This premise is not a necessary truth of RPGing. It is obviously not self-evident. Gygax denied its truth, in the context of AD&D, in his DMG (in his explanations of how hit points and saving throws work). Robin Law's HeroWars/Quest is a modern system that expressly rejects the premise, and that pretty clearly had an influence on 4e D&D.

If we can't talk about how fiction is established, by whom, in relation to what _mechanical_ procedures, then we can't talk coherently about how RPGing works. At best we can talk about minor variations of play within the parameters established by the assumed and unanalysed premises taken for granted in mainstream RPG culture.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Mar 4, 2021)

Ovinomancer said:


> If system is trumped by creativity and investment of the players alone, every time, then this actively counters your opening that system does matter.



You seem to assume that if system matters then it must be the ONLY thing that matters.  I'm saying it matters - it IS relevant and important.  Just not ALL important, or MORE important than any other factors, as some people are implicating.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 5, 2021)

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> You seem to assume that if system matters then it must be the ONLY thing that matters.  I'm saying it matters - it IS relevant and important.  Just not ALL important, or MORE important than any other factors, as some people are implicating.



I assume no such thing.  My point is that absent system, you're not playing a game anymore.  System, specifically agreed to conflict resolution, is required for a game.  It's what separates a game from free play.  There's a fuzzy line at the transition, of course, but at the point we get to RPGs it's no longer fuzzy.  System is necessary for play of an RPG.  It isn't sufficient for it, though, and I haven't argued otherwise.

What I was arguing against in your post was the statement that players' creativity and investment trumps systems every time.  And, my point (it was in the bits you cut out) was when system is supposedly trumped, what actually happens is a different system is swapped in.  Usually that system is "GM decides," although, to be fair, 5e largely rests on this system to begin with, so it's not really swapped in there so much as leveraged when the other bits of system conflict with a play goal.  System is always present, and always matters to the play at hand.  The confusion around this statement is usually in the form of missing that substitution of one system for another when creativity "trumps."


----------



## pemerton (Mar 5, 2021)

I want to pick up on the idea of _creativity_ and connect it to what @innerdude has posted in the last couple of days.

Imagine playing a fantasy RPG, with PCs who - as per the established fiction - are heroic in power. One of them wants to reforge a magic weapon (a bit like Siegfried in the eponymous opera by Wagner).

Or imagine playing a fantasy RPG, with PCs who - as per the established fiction - are demigod-like in power. One of the PCs wants to seal the Abyss at the 66th layer, so that all the lower layers will "drain out" through the bottomless pit of entropy that is at the bottom of the whole thing. (This is not utterly different from the feat of magic performed by Ged at the end of The Farthest Shore.)

How is this to be resolved?

Or to put it another way, who has the power to establish (i) _at the table_, that this action declaration is "within bounds" rather than out-of-bounds, and (ii) _of the fiction_, that it includes _the weapon being reforged_ or _the Abyss being sealed_.

I think a standard response - which has its origins, I think, in Gygax's advice in his DMG on creating magical items - is that _it is the GM's job to come up with a recipe or ritual_, and it is the player's job to _perform actions within a context broadly framed and adjudicated by the GM that establish (i) the PC possesses the necessary ingredients, and (ii) the PC then performs the appropriate steps with the ingredients_. This locates all the creativity on the GM side.

Another response - that I associate with 4e D&D and Cortex+ Heroic/MHRP - is that _the player_ decides what is necessary in the fiction, and _the GM _maps those fictional requirements onto the mechanical framework, relying on a robust set of rules for establishing difficulties, the mechanical "oomph" of various player-side expenditures, etc.  This locates the bulk of the fiction-oriented creativity on the player side, while the GM's job is to manage the mechanics.

Those two responses don't exhaust the possibilities (Burning Wheel would handle these sorts of action declarations differently from either of the above ways). But they show at least one way in which _creativity_ doesn't contrast with system but rather is something that interacts with system in various ways.


----------



## Emerikol (Mar 5, 2021)

Neonchameleon said:


> comments....






pemerton said:


> comments....




I really just wanted you all to know I was replying to you guys.

I think the big issue and misunderstanding is that you think people like me are questing for realism.  The whole thing about swallowing could be as simple as the creatures that don't do not prefer to eat their prey alive.   It's not the sort of thing that causes difficulty.   You keep wanting to push me into a camp that I am not in at all.  I do not want to play a hyper realistic game with lots of specific rules for every little thing.   That is not the inevitable conclusion of people like me.   If anything the OSR people are rebelling against that.

Some can't stand the thought that there is a consistent thread that runs through my thinking on objectionable stuff.  We've argued that one for ages.   I'm not abandoning that position but for purposes of "does system matter", it doesn't matter.   If my preferences are just random or if they are based on a particular discernible consistent viewpoint really is irrelevant for this discussion.  You know what I think and I know what many of you think.  

When a system implements rules that I have a hard time explaining when playing in my playstyle then it's a system I tend to avoid.  

I want specific things out of a game for the style I play.

1.  Favors in character viewpoint play.  This means avoiding metagame/dissociative mechanics.   (Again if you can't accept that I have a proper theory then just accept it as preference.  I believe I do have a rock solid theory but you may not.)
2.  Favors exploration of a well designed sandbox world that had some thought put into it.  Obviously, the sandbox area is far better defined than a distant country but that distant country has enough defined to satisfy the players needs.   The world is a living world that is changing even when the PCs are not affecting it.  DMs that make it up as they go are generally not favored.  That is not to say you never make some minor detail up but the goal is to have a well developed world.
3.  Adventures are player skill challenges.   Preparation is important.  Dungeon crawling in a careful and systematic way is important.   Combats require tactics and at times strategy.  Resource management is a concern.   
4.  Ultimately as the PCs gain in power and influence they interact with the world even more.  All the discussions about Domain management and books supporting that play exist because that is what is wanted for this particular style of play.   World engagement is big.
5.  The dice fall where they may and bad things can happen to PCs.  From death to energy drain, rust monsters, etc...   all that stuff that "modern" game designers say is bad are things desired by my style of play.  

I don't condemn any other style of play.  I just don't prefer it for myself.  I've been playing D&D since all of the above was the assumed and before that.   So I lived through the OSR days when the O was actually new.   So you can argue that you didn't play that way in those days, but I did.  I played that way all the way through 3e.  I realized though that with each succeeding edition, it was getting harder and harder to play the style of play I preferred.  So when for the first time, I didn't buy the next edition of D&D (5e), I just let go.  I let go of a name and I sought out games that suited me.   Right now I'm finding Adventurer Conqueror King interesting though C&C has a lot of good ideas.  My ideal game would probably be a fusion of some of what they do.


----------



## Manbearcat (Mar 7, 2021)

Emerikol said:


> 3.  Adventures are player skill challenges.   Preparation is important.  Dungeon crawling in a careful and systematic way is important.   Combats require tactics and at times strategy.  Resource management is a concern.




I want this as well.

To that end (where system mattering comes into play), out of system I expect the following:

a)  The gamestate and the fiction are dynamic and coherent with each other (if danger or risk or stakes increase in the fiction, the gamestate follows in kind...and vice versa).

b)  Decision-points are weighty.  Consequences have teeth.

c)  (a) and (b) can only be true if the (i) the system components are well integrated with each other and (ii) the players understand both the constituent parts and that holistic integration.

So take the following move:



> When you *shelter against the elements or attempt to stave off the effects of exposure*, say how and roll +Gear (*):
> 
> 10+ the desired effect comes to pass
> 7-9 the desired effect comes to pass but you lose 1 Adventuring Gear
> ...




So this works if all of the following conditions are true:

* The principles that underwrite how play progresses are transparent and understood and the corresponding moves made (both GM and player moves) work in concert with those principles.

* The elements and/or exposure faced is of sufficient pressure (both in frequency and potency).

* Losing Adventuring Gear comes with inferable cost while spending it and gaining it comes with inerrable boon and the economy of those 3 are (again) well-integrated.



So an example might be:

- 3 PCs have 7 total Adventuring Gear remaining.

- Including the present phase, the Perilous Journey through a high Himalayas glacial hike to ultimately scale an Everest-like peak ahead of them has 3 more stages (each with a Scout, Navigate, and Manage Provisions/Make Camp & Take Watch phase).

- A 6- result on a Navigate yields a significant Danger (the Navigator accidentally led the group to a dead-end ravine with sheer walls 60 feet high while a brutal storm will overtake them within the hour).

Decision-point:

* Hoping to stay ahead of the storm and keep moving, thereby not exacerbating their supplies and facing more Journey phases, the best climber could spend 1 Adventuring Gear to clamber up the face with crampons, rope, and pitons to quickly bolt a route to belay the others, taking +1 to a Defy Danger Str (likely being anywhere from +3 to +4) move. But this will ablate their Adventuring Gear down to 6 (putting them closer to the threshold of +3/+2 with a fair amount of Journey remaining) and a success w/ complication/cost or a worse danger could still emerge from this effort.

or

* The PCs could accept the fate of exacerbating their Journey phases, make shelter and hunker down, hoping to deal with the elements via a +Gear check (+3 in this scenario), and hoping that they don't lose/spend Gear in the process. This decision is made more complicated if there is a Danger Clock (maybe the dark Sorcerer in the keep at the top of the mountain is monitoring their progress and every time the Clock fills, he acts against them) that will invariably tick the longer the journey goes.



Every aspect of system matters to the multivariate decision-making in the above scenario.  The more opaque/less player-facing things are vs the more transparent/player-facing things are matters deeply.  The resource economy being sensibly (even if not perfectly) put together and well-integrated matters deeply.  The gamestate : fiction match matters deeply.  The coherency of the principles that underwrite the trajectory of play and moves made by all parties matters deeply.

If any one of those are off (the threshold of which will be clear in the play), play will become wobbly or entirely unwieldy (historically...this is where GMs exert Force to paper over the system problems and to create the illusion of meaningful decisions by the players).  

System matters.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 7, 2021)

Emerikol said:


> I think the big issue and misunderstanding is that you think people like me are questing for realism.  The whole thing about swallowing could be as simple as the creatures that don't do not prefer to eat their prey alive.   It's not the sort of thing that causes difficulty.   You keep wanting to push me into a camp that I am not in at all.  I do not want to play a hyper realistic game with lots of specific rules for every little thing.   That is not the inevitable conclusion of people like me.   If anything the OSR people are rebelling against that.
> 
> Some can't stand the thought that there is a consistent thread that runs through my thinking on objectionable stuff.
> 
> ...



I don't think you're questing for realism. You made that clear upthread.

But I think the idea of "rules-as-physics" that you described isn't really being upheld if we have to make up ad hoc stories like "dragon turtles do not prefer to eat their prey alive" in order to reconcile the mechanics with the fiction.

A consistent feature of D&D is various sorts of monsters with special abilities that (i) add zest and (ii) add challenge. This fits with your 3 above. I think it puts pressure on your 1 and 2, because the consistency of the fiction is being compromised in order to achieve 3.

It's like a pit that only opens when someone prods 8 to 10 feet in front of it. This can be a fine challenge in a D&D-type game, but it's absolutely nonsense from any perspective on the fiction that looks for coherence or a verisimilitudinous world.

The same is true of the super-tetanus pits, the ziggurat room, etc in White Plume Mountain.


----------



## innerdude (Mar 7, 2021)

Neonchameleon said:


> . . . in Star Wars SAGA, Luke Skywalker (RotJ era) is apparently a human Scout 1/Jedi 7/Ace Pilot 2/Jedi Knight 1 and CL 11.






Neonchameleon said:


> The idea that Luke can do ... anything ... he did in Return of the Jedi because of some RPG rules published almost a quarter of a century later is ridiculous and violates the laws of causality. The rules are, instead, intended to approximate the Star Wars setting that predated the Star Wars SAGA RPG rules and to make it easier to approximate that setting. And if I want Luke Skywalker to do something he does in the film that the rules don't cover then the rules are the issue.




This exact kind of thing, more specifically with D&D 3.5, but identical in concept, was what precipitated my first hints of discontent with D&D as a system back in 2009.

Even before I knew anything about GNS theory, Robin Laws, PbtA, or anything else, this sort of thing started brewing my discontent with the d20 "chassis."

Why was it so dang hard to model characters from fiction? Why did you have to pile on 10, 11, 12 levels of mish-mashed classes and prestige classes, just so a character could even vaguely resemble how he/she is presented in their fictional universe?

If the claim is that the "rules should model the physics of the world," then D&D's class-based structure fails that premise right from the start.

For a long time my solution was to then try to bend the D&D 3.5 rules every which way to hold it together. It's why I bought splatbooks---I was looking for the _exact perfect combination_ of classes/prestige classes/feats that could effectively model Specific Character Concept X.

Even now, the #1 thing that holds me back from re-embracing D&D 5e (or Pathfinder 2) isn't hit points, or tactical combat, or that the assumed mode of play is "GM fiat has to cover all of the rules gaps." It's that going back into a class-based system feels like a straitjacket.

Which, once again, is another in a never-ending stream of evidences that yes, system matters.

*Edit: FFG Star Wars' "talent tree" system is about as far into a "class/level" based system I'm willing to journey these days. It isn't my ideal, but at least buying cross-tree talents is pretty straightforward, and the rules support it out of the gate. It's still probably more restrictive than I'd prefer, but I enjoy the narrative dice mechanic immensely, which covers a multitude of sins.


----------



## Emerikol (Mar 7, 2021)

pemerton said:


> I don't think you're questing for realism. You made that clear upthread.
> 
> But I think the idea of "rules-as-physics" that you described isn't really being upheld if we have to make up ad hoc stories like "dragon turtles do not prefer to eat their prey alive" in order to reconcile the mechanics with the fiction.



The rules are the reality of the universe.  They are the observed phenomena of that world.  If I were a "scientist" of that world, I would observe that some creatures behaved in certain ways.  I threw out an explanation off the cuff for why the reality is true.  It is the reality of the world though.   If you struggle with the game reality then it's bad for you and I think we can agree on that.  I've never really struggled that much with the idea that some monsters swallowed PCs and others didn't.  I'm not sure why but I just never did.  Other things bother me though.  So sure if something about the rules bothered me enough, I would have to houserule.  Systems that make me houserule in a wholesale way are bad systems for me.  Emphasis on "for me".  Though I'd argue if you have to houserule a game massively then it's probably not the best system for you either.



pemerton said:


> A consistent feature of D&D is various sorts of monsters with special abilities that (i) add zest and (ii) add challenge. This fits with your 3 above. I think it puts pressure on your 1 and 2, because the consistency of the fiction is being compromised in order to achieve 3.
> 
> It's like a pit that only opens when someone prods 8 to 10 feet in front of it. This can be a fine challenge in a D&D-type game, but it's absolutely nonsense from any perspective on the fiction that looks for coherence or a verisimilitudinous world.
> 
> The same is true of the super-tetanus pits, the ziggurat room, etc in White Plume Mountain.



I think those things bothers you more than they bothers me.  I don't think it is a consistency issue though as the rules are the reality of the world.  Perhaps it is a versimilitudinous issue for some people.   

I will agree though that in 1e some of the magic in dungeons was "unexplained" by the rules as written and that at times posed a problem as the GM has to allow that a sufficiently powerful character should be able to replicate those things.  If that became a problem, then I'd likely have to house rule it.  The DM just stating you have to do this and this and this would be okay though.  That would become the reality of that world.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Mar 7, 2021)

Emerikol said:


> I really just wanted you all to know I was replying to you guys.
> 
> I think the big issue and misunderstanding is that you think people like me are questing for realism.



I don't. I think you are questing for _familiarity. _And familiarity is the reason you favour a lot of what you do despite it being against what you claim your preferences are.


Emerikol said:


> 1.  Favors in character viewpoint play.



D&D was explicitly a hacked tabletop wargame, founded round "pawn play" where you play from the top down rather than in character. If I want a good game for in character viewpoint play D&D is very low down on my list of where to look. Apocalypse World and its better hacks are right at the top. 


Emerikol said:


> This means avoiding metagame/dissociative mechanics.   (Again if you can't accept that I have a proper theory then just accept it as preference.  I believe I do have a rock solid theory but you may not.)



If I'm looking to avoid metagame/dissociative mechanics I ignore any game with 
(a) consequence free hit points
(b) hardcoded classes
(c) character levels

All these are, to me, pure metagame mechanics and have been known to disassociate me. And all of them are integral to every version D&D.


Emerikol said:


> 5.  The dice fall where they may and bad things can happen to PCs.  From death to energy drain, rust monsters, etc...   all that stuff that "modern" game designers say is bad are things desired by my style of play.



Again what you are saying you dislike is part of the raw essence of D&D. Any game in which an unarmoured fighter can take max damage from an orc swinging with an axe and the worst they will need is a few days in bed is one that is deliberately set up to ensure that bad things don't happen to PCs. 

The two games I started with were WFRP and GURPS. Both games in which injuries in ordinary fights matter because you might actually take a serious injury and where, rather than having the occasional piece of weirdness like a rust monster or spectre showing up and being an awkward fit with the overall theme of D&D every fight has the risk of suffering a genuinely serious injury. The notion of D&D as "combat as war" is about as pretentious to me as a group of paintball players talking about how paintball is war. And the idea that D&D has ever been a system where bad things happen to PCs is, to me, ludicrous.

So when I hear you say what you want and look at what you do I find a stark disconnect.


----------



## corwyn77 (Mar 7, 2021)

innerdude said:


> This exact kind of thing, more specifically with D&D 3.5, but identical in concept, was what precipitated my first hints of discontent with D&D as a system back in 2009.
> 
> Even before I knew anything about GNS theory, Robin Laws, PbtA, or anything else, this sort of thing started brewing my discontent with the d20 "chassis."
> 
> ...




You could probably just eliminate the penalties/restrictions from going cross-tree. Would that work?


----------



## innerdude (Mar 8, 2021)

corwyn77 said:


> You could probably just eliminate the penalties/restrictions from going cross-tree. Would that work?




I'll never know,  because I don't even bother with D&D or anything else on the d20 "chassis" any more.

Just the other night I wandered  down to my game shelf and pulled my copies of Fantasy Craft and Arcana Evolved off the shelf. The thought that immediately followed: "I am literally never going to play these games, ever, nor do I have any desire to even bother attempting to re-learn the intricacies of the d20 system."

At this point they're merely relics of a distant gaming past that doesn't need revisiting. If I want "traditional" style gaming, Savage Worlds does it better for me than any version of D&D, new, retroclone, or otherwise.

But I'm veering pretty hard into simpler / narrative style systems at the moment, regardless.

*Edit: I remember now why I bought Fantasy Craft in the first place. Because it at least dispensed with the ridiculous notion in 3.5 that NPCs had to adhere to the same build structure as the PCs. If an NPC needed to have certain stats/abilities, you just gave it to them.

*Edit 2: I just realized, @corwyn77 , that you were referring to FFG Star Wars. That's a good question! I don't have a firm enough grip on FFG SW yet to want to houserule. Once I start playing it again, it would definitely be something I'd consider. I have Genesys too, though someone on these forums (I think it was @aramis erak) said that switching to the Genesys talent "pyramid" vs. SW talent trees could unbalance gameplay in favor of the characters.


----------



## Manbearcat (Mar 8, 2021)

Back to this move I posted just above:



> When you *shelter against the elements or attempt to stave off the effects of exposure*, say how and roll +Gear (*):
> 
> 10+ the desired effect comes to pass
> 7-9 the desired effect comes to pass but you lose 1 Adventuring Gear
> ...




* If system didn't matter, then it wouldn't make a difference if this procedure was table-facing or GM-facing.

* If system didn't matter, then it wouldn't make a difference if the result spread and the mathematical distribution was perturbed (12+ = the desired effect comes to pass, 10-11 = the desired effect comes to pass but you lose 1 Adventuring Gear, 9- = you lose 1 AG and face a danger).

* If system didn't matter, then it wouldn't make a difference if the economy of Adventuring Gear to Gear Score was entirely different (7+ = +3 and 5-6 = +2 etc).

* If system didn't matter then the Load/Encumbrance system and how much load Adventuring Gear is either wouldn't be integrated with the rest of the system, would be hand-waved away, would be handled by GM fiat, or would be a different numerical relationship.

* If system didn't matter, then it wouldn't make a difference if you subbed out _"fill their lives with danger", "play to find out what happens", and "follow through (with whatever threat the telegraphed obstacle can bring to bear when the dice result, 6-, says you need to make a move)"_ for _"tell an interesting story and ignore the rules/resolution mechanics if they get in the way with that"._

* If system didn't matter, then it wouldn't make a difference if the Adventuring Gear system wasn't an abstract, catch-all, consumable for gear/supplies where you tick a box/mark a use (and refill them if you gain some) vs being discretized and was reusable/at-will vs consumable.

_*_ If system didn't matter, then it wouldn't make a difference if you presented a table-facing, 6 wedge Danger Clock titled "The Sorcerer's Gaze" that ticks (a) every new Journey phase, (b) can tick 1 on a 7-9, or (c) can tick 2 on a 6- (or 1 and a minor complication) and when it fills a Danger manifests as a byproduct of "The Sorcerer's Gaze" (rinse repeat until the Sorcerer is defeated).  If it was GM-facing only it wouldn't matter.  If the machinery that triggered ticking of the Clock was opaque it wouldn't matter.  If it was all arbitrarily done by GM feel or whim it wouldn't matter.   



This is one singular move and the moving parts integrated with it.  Perturb a single one and play changes significantly.  

This isn't an entire system.  Its one, small procedural chunk of play.

Making all of this discrete/modular rather than integrated, making all of this GM-facing rather than table-facing, and giving the GM the authority to ignore results or procedures at their "story-mandate-discretion" doesn't suddenly translate to "system doesn't matter."  It robustly (and obviously so) makes the case for "system matters (and incredibly so)."


----------



## Aldarc (Mar 8, 2021)

innerdude said:


> I'll never know,  because I don't even bother with D&D or anything else on the d20 "chassis" any more.
> 
> Just the other night I wandered  down to my game shelf and pulled my copies of Fantasy Craft and Arcana Evolved off the shelf. The thought that immediately followed: "I am literally never going to play these games, ever, nor do I have any desire to even bother attempting to re-learn the intricacies of the d20 system."



I will never run d20 Arcana Evolved again either, but I will miss AE. It was one of my favs back in my early d20-only days. I loved how it designed classes around playstyles (e.g., Gish, Heavy Armor Warrior, Light Armor Warrior, Skill Monkey, etc.) and the magic system (when compared to the contemporary 3.X). And I loved how it drew from non-Tolkienesque fantasy, namely Donald Stephenson's Chronicles of Thomas Covenant and Ursula LeGuin's Earthsea: e.g., truenames, rites and rituals, ceremonies, the power of oaths, runes, the Green and the Dark, etc. Heavy doses of nostalgia was one reason why I backed the Arcana Evolved for Cypher System Kickstarter, though I doubt it will capture the same charm as the original. 



innerdude said:


> At this point they're merely relics of a distant gaming past that doesn't need revisiting. If I want "traditional" style gaming, Savage Worlds does it better for me than any version of D&D, new, retroclone, or otherwise.
> 
> But I'm veering pretty hard into simpler / narrative style systems at the moment, regardless.



I have tried a number of times to like Savage Worlds. It has a toolkit approach that reminds me of another d20 era game that I also LOVED: True20. But much like 3e and True20, I find that Savage Worlds still seems heavily rooted in a '90s and '00s style game. I would probably love something more like a streamlined, simplified Savage Worlds rules system that was less interested in equipment porn or rules crunch for every situation.* 

* Hyperbolically: What sometimes feels to me while reading the rules as "rules and modifiers for what to do when making a called-shot with Mega-Super-Automatic Laser Assault Rifle 168-Xc (8.11 mm caliber) against someone who is being grappled behind half-cover on a cloudy Sunday afternoon around tea time." 

On the whole, SW feels like a far crunchier game than it needs to be for its incredibly "fast furious fun" slogan. Obviously personal tastes will vary.


----------



## Emerikol (Mar 8, 2021)

Neonchameleon said:


> I don't. I think you are questing for _familiarity. _And familiarity is the reason you favour a lot of what you do despite it being against what you claim your preferences are.
> 
> D&D was explicitly a hacked tabletop wargame, founded round "pawn play" where you play from the top down rather than in character. If I want a good game for in character viewpoint play D&D is very low down on my list of where to look. Apocalypse World and its better hacks are right at the top.
> 
> ...



I get it.  You have different concepts around metagame mechanics.  I've gotten it.  I didn't want for this conversation to degenerate into another debate on these topics because I know we fundamentally disagree to our cores and neither of us is going to change.   The point though is system matters.  That has been established. 



Neonchameleon said:


> Again what you are saying you dislike is part of the raw essence of D&D. Any game in which an unarmoured fighter can take max damage from an orc swinging with an axe and the worst they will need is a few days in bed is one that is deliberately set up to ensure that bad things don't happen to PCs.



You live in a different world from me.  I just don't see things as you do.  Plenty of bad things happened to PCs during the time when D&D was essentially in the OSR era.   If it didn't for you then your experience is different from mine and many others.  The game is a super heroic fantasy though so a 20th level fighter getting killed by a 1st level orc doesn't happen.  



Neonchameleon said:


> The two games I started with were WFRP and GURPS. Both games in which injuries in ordinary fights matter because you might actually take a serious injury and where, rather than having the occasional piece of weirdness like a rust monster or spectre showing up and being an awkward fit with the overall theme of D&D every fight has the risk of suffering a genuinely serious injury. The notion of D&D as "combat as war" is about as pretentious to me as a group of paintball players talking about how paintball is war. And the idea that D&D has ever been a system where bad things happen to PCs is, to me, ludicrous.
> So when I hear you say what you want and look at what you do I find a stark disconnect.



Of course there is a stark disconnect and from your tone a triggering one at that.  You can rail at the stars but the facts are a lot of us feel differently and experience D&D differently.   I very much played D&D in the early days and it satisfied those things I was looking for in a game.  My criticism of the game in those days would mostly be about things I'd expect an OSR game to fix.  Things like rolling high and positive armor class and no THAC0.  

I don't mind choices either so a bit of 3e would be fine but simultaneous to adding choices they also made the game far less in other areas I like.   It's why I think ACKS will likely satisfy me for now.  I like C&C but it's just a bit simple even for me.  They have some great ideas though so I'm not bashing C&C.  It's a good game and I'd play it.

Also realize that we are talking high fantasy.  If I were playing a space opera game, my desire for the high part of high fantasy would be far less.   I like N.E.W.  a lot and would play it for a space game.  It's far closer to GURPS than D&D though I think the system is better than GURPS.


----------



## innerdude (Mar 8, 2021)

@Aldarc -- There's so many things Savage Worlds does right. And you're not wrong, it's definitely a relic of its era. The first edition came out around 2002, and Deadlands maybe 4 or 5 years before that.

And it's still a very, very traditional system. It's discrete action/task resolution. Bennies/wounds/soak rolls are basically the same as healing surge / hit dice, only the metamechanics are applied immediately rather than as "Fortune in the Middle."

The thing that finally got me looking at other systems after 8 years was how hard it is to balance encounters where the players aren't just sitting around waiting for the dice to explode. The range of "fun yet challenging" encounter balance is very, very narrow.

What ends up happening is outside that very narrow band, encounters end up being total pushovers for the party, or they end up "sloggy."

And in my case, where I tend to keep encounters more grounded at the human level, it was starting to get boring. Boring to run the same ho-hum encounters ("Oh look . . . More spearmen. More archers. More swordsmen. Yay"), boring for the players, who after 8 years know every possible build trick, and aren't challenged anymore without ramping up the degree of difficulty so high that the flow of combat grinds to a stutter.

And truthfully, I don't know how much I really loved the upgrade from SW Deluxe to SWADE. Some of the speed/elegance got lost with the addition of the new condition effects, the changes to reduce the "whiffiness" of being shaken, the action economy changes. A year+ after I got my SWADE hardcover from the kickstarter, I still couldn't give you a clear explanation of how the "Frenzy" edge works now.

*Edit: the net result is that it's now nearly as tactically heavy as D&D 3, but with the added overhead of not just having to track hit point loss, but needing to track conditions, while worrying that the "whiff" factor is too high and the players tune out between turns. There's now too much mental overhead on the GM, with not enough tactically interesting choices for the players to make the GM overhead worth it. SWADE is probably the more mechanically sound system than Deluxe, but there's a subtle but palpable shift in mindset behind SWADE that loses some of the magic for me.

To top it off, going remote in the pandemic sapped the energy away as well. Savage Worlds relies heavily on the physical/visceral experience of the initiative draw of the card deck, the physically tossing of the bennies back and forth, the physical sound and sensation of the dice hitting the battle mat.

My last Ironsworn session was more enjoyable than any 5 SW sessions put together since the pandemic hit.

*Edit 2: And it really, really pains me to write this post, because I want to unabashedly love Savage Worlds, but I can't recommend it anymore without throwing out a huge list of provisos. And the thing of it is, when you hit the sweet spot, it's beautiful. D&D 3 never came within a country mile of the best experiences I had with Savage Worlds at its best. It's just become too hard to find that sweet spot anymore.


----------



## Emerikol (Mar 8, 2021)

innerdude said:


> @Aldarc -- There's so many things Savage Worlds does right. And you're not wrong, it's definitely a relic of its era. The first edition came out around 2002, and Deadlands maybe 4 or 5 years before that.
> 
> And it's still a very, very traditional system. It's discrete action/task resolution. Bennies/wounds/soak rolls are basically the same as healing surge / hit dice, only the metamechanics are applied immediately rather than as "Fortune in the Middle."
> 
> ...



A lot of systems suffer from being sloggy.  It's a really difficult challenge.  I experienced it some in 3e and a lot in 4e of D&D.   It's why I think fewer hit points in general is a good idea.

I am wondering about soak rolls myself.  I like the idea of a soak rule for armor.  It makes more sense than a static DR.  Still you don't want to the to go on forever without any damage.  Still when it comes to a creature like a dragon, they should be far easier to hit than they are in D&D but they also should be nigh near invulnerable due to their armor.  

I don't like Bennies at all.  I don't like Hero points or Fate points either.  

As far as "system matters", I think system matters and it depends on the type of game as well.  So systems aren't necessarily bad, though some are, but they also may only suit a particular style of play.  I'm sure some of those who endlessly love to debate me about mechanics have games that far suit them  more for their tastes.  For me suiting them would likely mean they didn't suit me.  So system matters to individuals and not just in general.


----------



## Aldarc (Mar 8, 2021)

innerdude said:


> @Aldarc -- There's so many things Savage Worlds does right. And you're not wrong, it's definitely a relic of its era. The first edition came out around 2002, and Deadlands maybe 4 or 5 years before that.



There are a lot of things that I do like about SW. But I'll admit that I don't have the same level of patience as I did 15 years ago when it comes to reading through pages of "3era" rules, particularly after seeing how elegant other systems can be with presenting their rules and generalized resolution systems. 



innerdude said:


> My last Ironsworn session was more enjoyable than any 5 SW sessions put together since the pandemic hit.



Intriguing. I have it, but haven't had a chance to run it. 



innerdude said:


> *Edit 2: And it really, really pains me to write this post, because I want to unabashedly love Savage Worlds, but I can't recommend it anymore without throwing out a huge list of provisos. And the thing of it is, when you hit the sweet spot, it's beautiful. D&D 3 never came within a country mile of the best experiences I had with Savage Worlds at its best. It's just become too hard to find that sweet spot anymore.



I get that. I have a similar issue now with the Cypher System. And before that? True20. Similar to SW, True20 is a product of its age and likewise struck in the d20 system, but I haven't found another system that has quite hit that "sweet spot" that I had with True20 when it came to designing, kit-bashing, and running games. There are games that tease me with that feeling (e.g., SotDL; Cypher System, AGE, Savage Worlds, Stars/Worlds Without Number), but none have quite hit that sweet spot.


----------



## innerdude (Mar 9, 2021)

Was thinking about it a bit more. I think the main issue in Savage Worlds is that there's a limited number of ways to challenge the players without "spiking" the numbers so high that they're left flailing about just hoping to explode the dice on an attack roll, since the "fighting" skill directly correlates to parry. 

Then you throw in the possibility that damage rolls can ultimately have zero effect ("whiff") if they don't meet the toughness threshold. 

One of the house rules I've considered implementing is that on any attack that succeeds with a raise but damage fails to cause a shaken or wounded condition, the victim is considered vulnerable until their next action, regardless of the result of the damage die. The idea being trying to model putting someone off their guard, even if the immediate attack doesn't cause physical stress / injury. 

But that just adds yet another conditional modifier to the mix --- and yet more overhead.


----------

