How about this:

For some game systems, having a good GM really matters.

Quote from: Consonant DudeThe thing is, guys I consider "awesome GMs" aren't very likely to use what I consider crap.

That's true. As I said part of being a good GM is choosing a good system.

But -

The question was, "if he's GMing a system you hate." There are systems which I hate or dislike, but I don't think they're crap. They're just not to my taste. I dislike D&D3.5, but I don't think it's a crap game.

As well, whether a game is good or bad, whether I like the game or not, a game may be more or less appropriate to the group's style of play.

For example, I ran a campaign where we used GURPS. I found that three of the four players were not interested in a plus or minus here or there, nor were they interested in tactics, or very much in character power improvements, instead they were interested in lively descriptions of things, and the relationships of their characters. So the strengths of GURPS were useless to me with that group as a whole, and the weaknesses of GURPS hindered us. GURS is a good system, and 4e is well-written and presented. And I like it. But it wasn't right for the play style of the group. So we had fun despite, not because of, the system.

For the next run of the campaign with similar players, I used Fate 2e, which suited their play style very well. Fate 2e is definitely an imperfect system, a lot of the stuff is muddled and vague, I had to house rule it a lot just to flesh it out to a playable level. I like some parts of it, and not others. But it suited the group's style almost perfectly.

But then, the first campaign was still better, because of the particular combination of players we had. The first campaign had two active players, and two reactive ones; the second campaign just one active player, and two or three reactive ones. The first campaign had two people who were always trying to make things happen, the tension between those two, the back-and-forth of ideas, really kept things moving; the two active players were like two legs moving the body of the campaign forwards. The second campaign had just one player trying to make things happen, so it just hopped along.

So even though the system better-suited the group's play style the second time, the first group had a better campaign, because of the combination of players.

Anyway, that's what it breaks down to, I think,

• How good the system is - how clearly-written, well though-out, and complete
• Whether you like the system or not
• Whether it suits your group's play style.

When someone says "a crap system" or "a good system", they usually mean the second one. But I think you've got to look at it those ways.

I guess really it could be "system matters, least".  Because system DOES matter, but less than the GM or the players.  

And yes, the players are highly important.  A good GM can do a lot to encourage good playing, but if the players in a group are all poor, or you have even a few bad apples, it becomes problematic.

RPGpundit

I concur with the original post. I'm sure I could have a kickin time with systems I consider lame like RIFTS or Star Wars d6 with the right GM and group.

Which speaking in broad strokes puts it at least #3 in importance.

Some folks use "system matters" as an objectivizing yarn. But to me, "system matters" in itself is subjective. It seems obvious to me that some systems I hate others have great fun with. Some people can have fun with nearly any system. So to me, systems matter to those who they matter to.

QuoteFor some game systems, having a good GM really matters.

I concur.

For some systems, it matters more than others. Amber, for example. But these systems are few and far between.

RPGPundit

Mechwarrior 2nd.
Rifts

Quote from: RPGPunditI guess really it could be "system matters, least".  Because system DOES matter, but less than the GM or the players.  

And yes, the players are highly important.  A good GM can do a lot to encourage good playing, but if the players in a group are all poor, or you have even a few bad apples, it becomes problematic.

RPGpundit

Which is why JimBob's focus on groups is probably more valuable as a starting point than system.  Which, if linked to the discussions of Cheetoism, brings us back to the idea that you start with group dynamics and view system as one aspect or tool in getting and keeping that group?

I don't know. I agree that system is important, but IMHO only in the sense that it serves the group.

Can a system break up a group? Can a system keep a group from breaking up?

Quote from: James J SkachCan a system break up a group? Can a system keep a group from breaking up?

A system can help make behaviors (both good and bad) really, really obvious.  Hard to say whether that's causes groups to either break up or stay together, but it seems like it could be one of a number of elements that work together toward those ends.

Like, Primetime Adventures makes it very obvious when you're praising someone else's contributions to the game.  Tokens change hands.  So that both makes it clear when you are praising them and also makes it clear when you are not praising people.  If someone wants to get all in a huff because they think nobody appreciates them, they're either objectively right (they have no tokens ... wonder why that is?) or objectively wrong (they're swimming in tokens, they just aren't paying attention to others when they praise them).  That makes it hard for people to have a conversation where they're really talking past each other on that particular topic.  They aren't going to break up because somebody says "I never get praised!" and everyone else says "You're crazy!  You get praised all the time!"

At the same time, PtA obscures issues of conflict between players about the direction of the game.  It makes it harder to see when two people are at logger-heads, creatively.  So maybe, if that becomes a problem with your group, then PtA would make things worse.

Does that whole idea, of rules systems making some behaviors obvious and some harder to see, make sense to folks?

Quote from: TonyLBDoes that whole idea, of rules systems making some behaviors obvious and some harder to see, make sense to folks?

Are you asking if a game system should mechanically handle interpersonal issues of the gaming group?

Or is the PtA mechanic resulting in the unintended consequence of revealing something about the interpersonal issues?  What I mean is, I get the concept of awarding creativity by allowing other players to mechanically reward a player.  I'm not sure how I feel about it, but I get what it's meant to do.  But is the fact that you can then also handle the "Nobody praises me!" interpersonal issue by objectively counting tokens an intended goal of the mechanic?  If so, that starts to get a little hinke to me.

EDIT: And this has little to do with the thread - my apologies.

Quote from: James J SkachAre you asking if a game system should mechanically handle interpersonal issues of the gaming group?

I'm saying that every system does, in fact, help set the stage in terms of what people notice and what they don't.

For instance, D&D makes it very easy for a group to talk about players who are acting counter to the overall benefit of the group:  you can say "Hey man, your bone-headed fireball spell cost us fifty hit points, party-wide, that time!  What the hell is up with that?"

It's unlikely that a D&D group would have emotional issues stemming from some party members being tactically ineffective without everyone realizing that it's an issue.  The system makes it bleedingly (literally!) obvious.

That doesn't mean it won't be a problem, but there won't be any mystery about what the problem is.  You can point straight at it.  Same thing.

Quote from: James J SkachCan a system break up a group? Can a system keep a group from breaking up?

My own take is more like: Which mental "muscles" is a system pushing me on, and is that good for me and those other players? Rules that keeps working on your favored mental aspects will make you feel creative and awesome, while rules that push on your weaker ones might ultimately give you the intellectual equivalent of a sprain, and reduce your fun - and in the long run effect whether all the players still find it worthwhile to keep gaming.

Example from my DitV campaign: the game can encourage and reward improvised rhetorical conflict. One of my players was absurdly good at sort of thing, so he was running through the game at a brisk pace. I was GM, and that sort of thing wasn't my very best strength, but it was fun - maybe like endurance training or something. But another one of my players hadn't really developed their "rhetorical muscles" in that way, and indeed, their play started getting more labored. (Once I noticed that, I avoided putting that player in that kind of situation as often.)

Another example: Wushu, the game that's fast-paced improvisation and player narration of action scenes. Whenever it's your turn, you feel pressured to come up with maybe 5 embellishments on your actions, and you feel pressured to make each and every one absolutely awesome. Some people thrive perfectly with that kind of "work" to do. I like that aspect of Wushu (and enjoy the game, but I don't have the endurance to do just that, and if I was in a group that just doing Wushu every week, I'd get burned out after a while (unless we changed our game to have less push on that aspect).

Quote from: James J SkachOr is the PtA mechanic resulting in the unintended consequence of revealing something about the interpersonal issues?  What I mean is, I get the concept of awarding creativity by allowing other players to mechanically reward a player.  I'm not sure how I feel about it, but I get what it's meant to do.  But is the fact that you can then also handle the "Nobody praises me!" interpersonal issue by objectively counting tokens an intended goal of the mechanic?  If so, that starts to get a little hinke to me.

Yeah, totally - there's no way that counting tokens would fix the actual social problem of "I don't feel appreciated", certainly.

In my PTA experiences, the thing the described mechanic does is just encourage a kind of behavior to be more frequent (mechanical incentives) and more clear (instead of just saying "cool", it's easier to tie your praise to something specifically positive). But, at our table, the actual mechanical token that you got from praise was nice but not as important as actually having given/gotten praise.

Quote from: TonyLBI'm saying that every system does, in fact, help set the stage in terms of what people notice and what they don't.

For instance, D&D makes it very easy for a group to talk about players who are acting counter to the overall benefit of the group:  you can say "Hey man, your bone-headed fireball spell cost us fifty hit points, party-wide, that time!  What the hell is up with that?"

It's unlikely that a D&D group would have emotional issues stemming from some party members being tactically ineffective without everyone realizing that it's an issue.  The system makes it bleedingly (literally!) obvious.

That doesn't mean it won't be a problem, but there won't be any mystery about what the problem is.  You can point straight at it.  Same thing.

Man, I can't put my finger on it - but in six months it's going to hit me and I'm going to have to dig this thread up and call bullshit.  Something is wrong with this comparison, but for the life of me it escapes me at the moment.

Quote from: DevPMy own take is more like: Which mental "muscles" is a system pushing me on, and is that good for me and those other players? Rules that keeps working on your favored mental aspects will make you feel creative and awesome, while rules that push on your weaker ones might ultimately give you the intellectual equivalent of a sprain, and reduce your fun - and in the long run effect whether all the players still find it worthwhile to keep gaming.

Example from my DitV campaign: the game can encourage and reward improvised rhetorical conflict. One of my players was absurdly good at sort of thing, so he was running through the game at a brisk pace. I was GM, and that sort of thing wasn't my very best strength, but it was fun - maybe like endurance training or something. But another one of my players hadn't really developed their "rhetorical muscles" in that way, and indeed, their play started getting more labored. (Once I noticed that, I avoided putting that player in that kind of situation as often.)

Another example: Wushu, the game that's fast-paced improvisation and player narration of action scenes. Whenever it's your turn, you feel pressured to come up with maybe 5 embellishments on your actions, and you feel pressured to make each and every one absolutely awesome. Some people thrive perfectly with that kind of "work" to do. I like that aspect of Wushu (and enjoy the game, but I don't have the endurance to do just that, and if I was in a group that just doing Wushu every week, I'd get burned out after a while (unless we changed our game to have less push on that aspect).

OK, but that's not the question.  No disrespect, but would a system break up your group? It doesn't sound like it.  It sounds like the way in which you adjust to the players is more important than the system itself.

Likewise, would DitV or d20 keep your group together?  I doubt it.