Robin Laws opened his "Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering" with the following paragraph:

"Game designers, your truly included, are an egotistical, control-hungry breed. That's why we avoid contemplating a certain essential truth of the roleplaying game. When you look at the various factors that determine whether any given group of players has a good gaming experience on any particular night, all of our efforts account for, at the absolute, outside best, maybe 30% of the equation. Our lovingly-crafted rules sets, our peerless prose, the hours upon hours of playtesting, the painstaking research, the time we sweat away messing with minor details on all of those freakin' maps - all of it matters way less than we like to think."

Like most of the text of this very insightful work by Mr. Laws, this is a simple truism. It's been true since the dawn of the hobby and it will stay true through its extinction.

Which brings me back to "swine design."

A lot of these theme-based story-creation games like My Life With Master and Sorcerer are intended to include rules for playing only one narrowly-defined type of story.

For a long time, these sort of "crippleware" games baffled me. Why such a narrow focus? Surely, the sales figures of more consequential games in the hobby prove beyond any doubt that the most popular and long-lasting games are the ones that allow for many diverse playstyles within the same rules set. It made about as much sense as designing a pocket calculator that could only do addition.

Then it occured to me: Robin was right! This is, in fact, the insecurity of vain designers run rampant!

How better to make sure that those stupid gamers don't insult your genius by running your perfect game the wrong way than by not including any rule that might allow them to do so? And by attempting to impose laughable limits on the GM's power (the infamous "Say yes or roll the dice")?

It wouldn't be the first time that a designer lapsed into such vainglorious windbaggery regarding the One True Way to use their products. Gary Gygax's infamous AD&D editorials in Dragon come to mind, as does World of Darkness with its screed in the rulebook about "roleplaying, not rollplaying."

But this new group of guys isn't just ranting about knowing what's best for those ungrateful cretins who buy their products, they're doing something about it, and that something is the creation of myopic crippleware in the guise of an RPG. All in a failed effort to enshrine themselves as the most important person at any given gaming table, above the players and above the GM. Everyone involved is artifically limited to being exactly as creative as the designer was when creating the game and in the exact same ways.

So I ask you: Is the classic Forgie justification that "System matters!" merely a mindless slogan for deluded designers that lack the basic humility to admit that "Systems, including mine, matter a lot less than I want them to?"

Yes and no.

Yes, in that many indie designers believe that a lot of the advice given in game books is shit, that theirs is better-suited to their audience and to their games, and that by writing their advice in more rules-like and digestible bits, it's more likely to be heeded.

No, in that 'system' in the Forge sense includes house rules, not just game books.  To many of them, the word 'system' means "the entire process by which decisions are made at the table".  The whole system matters essay is dated, because that definition of system came to them later.

Quote from: YamoSo I ask you: Is the classic Forgie justification that "System matters!" merely a mindless slogan for deluded designers that lack the basic humility to admit that "Systems, including mine, matter a lot less than I want them to?"

First of all, yes, game designers are indeed egotistical. I can't think of a single one, including myself, that doesn't think that their grand vision of how a game should be played shouldn't touch, if not dominate, many or all of the gaming tables out there. It is, after all, our job to shepherd the clueless into having the most fun that is humanly possible. How can it possibly be fun if its simply a matter of the blind leading the blind.

Or can it?

I have to admit that of all the years I've spent gaming, the most fun me and the group I was running had was when I was young and didn't give a whit about the official rules. As I got older I started to care more, and the games inevitably slowly went from high adventure to rules lawyering and tedium. Eventually I came to the realization that roleplaying is nothing more than a game of "Let's pretend" with rules to govern the outcome.

So that said, in my opinion, the only good new rules are ones that open up new options to the players. I'm not talking about options to break the rules, or options that might give you a 2% better chance to hit the BBEG, but the type of rules that allow you to play a character type not otherwise provided for in the rules.

Frankly, I love designing that kind of stuff. But aside from that, my real joy comes from bringing forth new campaign setting material because it isn't an exercise in rules manipulation, but an exercise in creativity. It's not the rules that you bring to the table that truly immortalize you as a game designer, it's the elements of story that eventually proogate from group to group, session to session, edition to edition that really immortalize a game designer.

So bottom line, the system really isn't that important unless it sucks so bad that it actually impedes play.

Quote from: YamoSo I ask you: Is the classic Forgie justification that "System matters!" merely a mindless slogan for deluded designers that lack the basic humility to admit that "Systems, including mine, matter a lot less than I want them to?"

I have often said system does not matter. Strangely, I get counterdicted most often by players. As a publisher, I should be touting the absolute fine grained dedication of a system is pivotal to enjoying a setting. However, I honestly believe there is no such thing as a dedicated system. Sure, certain incarnations of a system (a sci-fi system with computers skills) might be tied to a setting but the resolution mechanics can be applied across the board.

I have always asked if someone could tell me of a truly dedicated to a setting system and no one has yet been able to. I would not mind being wrong on this but I believe that you cannot do this by the very definition of the issue.

Now, does system influence play? Yes, but less than most designers would like to admit. Flavor, reference, setting aids (maps, adventures) and to a degree system all make for the complete designer side of the equation. I must agree with Laws that the much larger part of the equation is on the side of the group during play.

Anecdote: I love Star Trek. I think it is great space opera. I have tried four incarnations of ST: RPG and all have failed miserably. One part is design. I just can't get past Phasers and Transporters. The larger part is me and the people I played with. They were gamers. They gamed the system and broke the setting. Transporters were used to replicate soldiers, beam party members out of danger and repair fatal wounds. Phasers were used to level buildings, incinerate enemies and blast our way through problems. Is this a system problem? Possibly, but you would have to crank down pretty hard to stop any abuse. The big part was that we were a bunch of hack and slashers with real world problem solving skills;i.e. Engineers. Psyche profile be damned, if the Captain gave us grief we fried him. For an ST game to work, you need a lot of people on the same page who want to play ST. That means drama, red shirts dying, the captain getting the girl and a lot of politically correct meta-preaching.

So, all the efforts of designers really means less than they would like to think. Me, I revel in helping folks rip up my settings and system to fit their game. That is what a designer, IMHO, should be all about.

Bill

Having very narrow games allows every mechanic in the book to focus on that one area of game-play. That's, IMO, objectively beneficial to producing that one specific kind of experience.

Now: the utility of the game to do things outside that area of specialty may well be degraded (depending on what you do)--but that's not the game-designer's problem if the context of the game is clearly stated.

-Marco

System matters, a bit. Setting matters, a bit. The temperature of the room matters. The quality of the pizza matters. How comfortable the chairs are, matters. The volume of the background noise or music matters. How bad traffic was matters. If the GM's shirt is itchy, that matters.

Everything matters. Mostly, you know, the folks playing. But everything.

Quote from: MarcoHaving very narrow games allows every mechanic in the book to focus on that one area of game-play. That's, IMO, objectively beneficial to producing that one specific kind of experience.

Exactly. I'm just speculating as to what might motivate a designer to see this as a worthy goal in the first place. Not just the theory jargon that they might employ to justify it to others, but what's really driving the process for them psychologically.

It sure isn't the potential to turn a big profit and, in light of that, I'm tempted to look to egotism.

Quote from: YamoIt sure isn't the potential to turn a big profit and, in light of that, I'm tempted to look to egotism.

I know this is a scary notion, but I do speak from experience with many of these people when I say: never underestimate how deluded some game designers are about the potential for their garage-made games to make a huge profit.

Really. I know it's sane and comforting to assume that everyone realizes the scale of things, but I know people with a bedroom/den/basement/garage stacked floor-to-ceiling with boxes of unsold books because they honest-to-god managed to publish an entire game without having a single fucking clue about how big their print run should be. More than just one such case, in fact.

Sad, as they say, but true.

As I honestly reflect back upon my gaming experiences, I must say that system and setting matter only as much as how well the GM can present them.

Some of the best games I've played have been kitbashed systems or developed on the fly with a setting that was little more than a nugget of concept when the GM started and evolved into a world as we played.

My [extensive] gaming library is nothing more than an "idea bank" for the worlds that I create and develop.

(More often than not, it's "has someone else already thought of this idea?  Yes?  Then forget it and move on to another idea...")

Quote from: Vellorian(More often than not, it's "has someone else already thought of this idea?  Yes?  Then forget it and move on to another idea...")

My own preferred internal question is "has someone else already developed this idea to my satisfaction?"

Quote from: S. John RossMy own preferred internal question is "has someone else already developed this idea to my satisfaction?"

Point given.  I've been working with some guys who have redefined the various "typical" races enough that I find them quite interesting.  In that vein, then, they have developed an idea "to their satisfaction" and I find it worth my time, even though I've become tired of the "typical" races.

I design in vain. Does that count? :O

-mice

Quote from: flyingmiceI design in vain. Does that count?

"Vanity of vanites, all is vanity."

The way I see it, the system is a tool. And like any tool, it depends on who wields it. The GM can make or break a game. The system can help him along the way, but in the end, it is the GM's grasp of the setting, his ability to communicate the setting, and his ability to tell a good story that truly decides on the outcome of the game.

A really good GM does not really need a system. If his players are up to the challenge, a game can be played freeform and still be a lot of fun.

Quote from: pigames.netA really good GM does not really need a system. If his players are up to the challenge, a game can be played freeform and still be a lot of fun.

Well, sure.  

I mean, I've run freeform - but it can be hard to make it gripping.

I like have a set of rules to do the heavy lifting.  

And if those rules can spur the players to do it with me, all the better.

I'm lazy that way.