I recently conceived of something that clarified this whole subject to me.  In a recent livejournal debate (that's linked in my blog), a Swine user made the argument along the lines that "a bad RPG system being run by a great GM is still going to be worse than a great RPG system run by a bad GM".  And of course, I think this is utter bullshit.

It ends up being the logical conclusion of the "system matters" nonsense that drives the Theory Swine, taken to its extreme.

I think there's a difference between rational people who have said "Hey, you know what, system matters!", that being something one can agree with; and nutjob Theory Swine who have taken that to mean "system is ALL that matters".  Its from there that they become obsessed with creating systems that try to eliminate the GM from the equation as much as possible.  Its a flawed seed of logic that has led to a disaster of epic proportions.

Of course, system DOES matter. But only slightly.  A Great GM running a crappy system will still, ANY TIME, be able to make a more enjoyable than a Bad GM running a perfectly-built System.  System matters, therefore, only in the sense that a Great GM running a Great system will be better than a Great GM running a crappy system.

RPGPundit

I have to agree on that conclusion.  We have a GM locally who is absolutely amazing at running games.  Several times we've bought a game, he'll read it, and then run it.  Sometimes we've picked up some really turd burger system games.  But they were still fun to play and the GM made it all interesting.

Now when the guy runs a game using his own homebrew system, which we all like, then it's absolute gold.

My addition will be that system matters a little based on style of gameplay.  For instance if you want a fast action, quick resolution to keep everything moving fantasy game Rolemaster might not be the best choice.  Same side of the coin if you want highly detailed combat with lot of grit then FUDGE isn't what you're looking for also.

Just my two cents and a bit of pocket lint.

Is this supposed to be some kind of revelation? System always mattered.

Other things, also, always mattered.

The thing is, there are so many systems and games out there, that I simply can't understand why I wouldn't carefully tailor the system to the kind of play experience I am looking for.

If this was 1982, maybe my choice would be limited. Today, I just won't settle for something that doesn't fit. Especially as a GM. As a player, I tend to be more flexible, while still not being desperate.

Yeah: game mechanics matter a fair amount. The people involved, especially, IME, the GM, matter a whole lot more. But that's me. It could be different for someone else and I think that's reasonably fair.

I think it all depends on what you're picky about.

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoYeah: game mechanics matter a fair amount. The people involved, especially, IME, the GM, matter a whole lot more. But that's me. It could be different for someone else and I think that's reasonably fair.

I agree, Marco! People come first for me too. It's all about getting along with pleasant individuals and really being able to communicate.

Quote from: Consonant DudeThe thing is, there are so many systems and games out there, that I simply can't understand why I wouldn't carefully tailor the system to the kind of play experience I am looking for.

I think he might be looking at it more from a player's perspective.  I'm thinking of two GMs I know in particular.  The "bad" one once asked me to play Star Wars (a game I love) and I said no, because I knew he'd screw it up somehow.  The "good" one once asked me to play Dr. Who, a setting I have absolutely no interest in, with game mechanics that may have been good in the 80s.  I said yes and had a good time while it lasted, mainly because the GM made it interesting.

Pete

It's always hard to compare two very different things.  No one denies that people matter and that system matters, too.  The question is, how do you compare them?  i.e. Is game X worse than person Y?  What range do you give to each?  For example, if you consider a "bad game" something you mildly dislike, and a "bad GM" as a foul-smelling, deliberate jerk -- then you'll say that people as vastly more important.  On the other hand, suppose the range you imagine is playing a bunch of different games with friends whom you like.  Then you might picture a "bad GM" is a friend who lacks GMing skills, and a "bad system" is a game whose concept you totally hate.  

For example, on the Cheetos for Hannukah thread, JimBobOz talked about his playing "Dogs in the Vineyard"...

Quote from: JimBobOzMy fellow players were lovely. They felt that the game obliged them to play characters who were cunts, though, and they didn't like that. Which you would realise if you'd read my posts, instead of just going, "oh, that prick jimboboz, I'll skim over his post and abuse him for it."

So here's a case where (for him) the system was more important than the players.  

Now, when going to games at conventions, I always prefer to look at the names of the GMs first to look for people who I recognize and trust.  However, there's a caveat here that I trust them to either pick decent systems -- or house-rule or modify a game system in play to mitigate its suckiness.

I know that if Pundit ever thinks of gamemastering a Werewolf campaign, I *might* consider playing in it.

OTOH, there's no chance in hell I'd play Shadowrun with certain GMs I know (no names, because they don't post here or in any forum you guys know).

Quote from: pspahnI think he might be looking at it more from a player's perspective.

Gotcha. Yeah, in that case, I'd go with the GM I am comfortable with.

Quote from: jhkimThen you might picture a "bad GM" is a friend who lacks GMing skills, and a "bad system" is a game whose concept you totally hate.  

This is where I'm coming from, more or less. The "bad" GM I'm talking about could be the poster boy for bad GMs.  He's brought all the old cliches to new levels---GMPCs, railroading, die fudging (for his own benefit), and a ton of other no-no's.  I've got another friend who's not nearly as bad, but I'd still label him a "bad" GM for several reasons (some of which are just differences in play styles) including his inability to run a game without miniatures/rulers/maps, his need to get every single rule perfect (which means a lot of waiting around while he finds the right page and the lengthy discussion/argument that inevitably follows), and his strict adherence to game minutiae (like keeping track of food and water consumption in a modern day setting).  I like hanging out with my friends, but I can't sit through a horribly run campaign.  I could be writing or doing something else more constructive.

Pete

EDIT:  I can't think of any game whose concepts I totally HATE.  I'm either interested or I'm not.  It's hard to hate make-believe.  

I know a bloke who's got some real talent as a GM. I seriously take my hat off to his skillz. On a personal level he's beyond reproach, and good company.

But I decline to play in some of the games he runs because I know I will not enjoy them. On the other hand, if he mentions certain other games I'm there like a shot.

I don't think there's anything really controversial about this. I have friends who enjoy indoor cricket, or discussing rock music. I may not participate, but I don't think any the less of them for having varying tastes. We can still converse.

Quote from: RPGPunditSystem matters, therefore, only in the sense that a Great GM running a Great system will be better than a Great GM running a crappy system.

RPGPundit

Great GMs run great games, whatever the system. But really, how many Great GMs are there out there? And how does one define Great?

All I got to go on, is what I see in my games. Some systems inspire my players to take it to the next level. I don't know why? Perhaps, the combination of that system and my skills bring out the best in them. Who knows? It probably will not work for all groups.

The fact is, system had always mattered for some (most) groups depending on the kind of games they wanted to run. This big debate about system matters is because some folks took it upon themselves to change the discussion from system matters - to system matters because it determines your playstyle and the content (substance?) of your games.

Regards,
David R

While I agree that personal style is at least as important to a game as
mechanics, I would like to quibble with the ``GM as auteur'' assumption.  The
skill and personality of the players  is just as important as the GM's skill and
personality.   I know a few players whose presence always makes a game worthwhile even if the GM sucks, as well as having experience with players who drag any game down no matter how skilled the GM.    

Not all the people I like as friends are good GM's and/or players, and vice versa.   And not all good players are good GMs or vice versa.  My first great role-playing experience was with a married couple.  She was a great GM, and he was a great player.  When they reversed roles, the game really tanked.  

My second quibble is that a good game is really a matter of compatibility, not just
skill.  When I talk about a good GM, I mean one that runs the type of game I enjoy.  
There are certainly games where I was the only one not having lots of fun.  If I say that the GM or players were ``bad'', I just mean they were bad for me, not for each other.  

Russell

Hello, russell. Welcome to the site. You haven't by any chance posted on the random playstyle questions thread in the Theory & Craft section, have you..?

Regards,
David R

I think the GM/System elements are equal parts of an equation.

A bad gm with a good system is a zero sum thing.  A good GM with a bad system is the same way.

If I'm going to play, the equation needs to come out to something positive.